## Would you be so kind answering our questions? [Power / Sample Size]

Hi kms,

» » study planned for 90% power: The chance to obtain a post hoc power of ≥95% is ~35%.
»
» Is it a thumb rule?

No; obtained in simulations by the R-code I posted above. There is only one – rather trivial – rule of thumb: The chance to get a post hoc power which is either lower or higher than the target is ~50%.

» how it should be calculated?

Once you performed the simulations, use

cat("Simulated studies with post hoc power \u22650.95:", sprintf("%.2f%%",     100*length(res[, 3][res[, 3] >= 0.95])/nsims), "\n")

You should get

Simulated studies with post hoc power ≥0.95: 34.97%

Adapt the relevant data according to your needs. For CV 0.30, T/R 0.90, and target power 80% you would get only 7.77% in the range 0.95–0.99 and 8.64% ≥0.95.

» Yes, on getting posthoc analysis, i found three aspects what you said:
» After experiment, it came to know that
» 1. CV getting lower
» 2. GMR close to 1
» 3. No dropouts/withdrawls (though prior consideration of 10% dropouts)

Fine. Can you explain to us why you performed a “posthoc analysis” at all? What did you want to achieve? To repeat ElMaestro:
» » » Try and ask yourself which question post-hoc power actually answers. Try and formulate it in a very specific sentence.

For the 5th time (already asked #1, #2, #3, #4): An example would help.

Cheers,
Helmut Schütz

The quality of responses received is directly proportional to the quality of the question asked. 🚮
Science Quotes

20,635 posts in 4,324 threads, 1,434 registered users;
online 14 (0 registered, 14 guests [including 7 identified bots]).
Forum time: 11:35 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.    Aldous Huxley

The Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum is hosted by
Ing. Helmut Schütz