Answer: After conducting a power analysis, the researchers planned a sample size of 96 patients for their study. The 96 subjects allowed for 30 subjects per group for the three study groups plus 6 subjects for sample mortality or attrition.
2. What was the sample size for the Voss et al. (2004) study? Was this sample size adequate for this study? Provide a rationale for your answer.
Answer: The sample size for this study was N = 62. The power analysis indicated that a sample of 96 was needed and the 62 subjects in the sample were less than was projected by the power analysis. However, preliminary analyses after the 62 patients were enrolled revealed significant groups differences. Since significant group differences were found, then the sample size was adequate and no Type II error occurred of saying the groups were not significantly different when they were.
3. What effect size was used in conducting the power analysis for this study? What effect size was found during data analysis and how did this effect the sample size needed for this study?
Answer: A moderate effect size of 0.33 was used to conduct the power analysis. During data analysis, the researchers indicated that significant group differences and large effect sizes were found for anxiety, pain sensation, and pain distress. Since a large effect size was found during data analysis, the sample size of 62 was adequate to detect significant group differences versus the 96 projected in the power analysis. The larger the effect size, the smaller the sample needed to detect group differences.
4. What power was used to conduct the power analysis in the Voss et al. (2004) study? What amount of error exists with this power level? Provide a rationale for your answer....