Sample Size Justification in Quantitative Research.

IF 2.5 4区 医学 Q1 NURSING
Alicja Rogusz
{"title":"Sample Size Justification in Quantitative Research.","authors":"Alicja Rogusz","doi":"10.1097/NNR.0000000000000949","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Sample-size justification remains a central element of quantitative research, yet classical a priori power analysis is frequently applied to designs for which it is neither required nor conceptually appropriate. When power calculations are used indiscriminately, they may misalign with the aims of studies that do not need them. This poses challenges for researchers and student nurses, particularly those without specialist training in statistics, and can lead to methodological inconsistencies across the published nursing literature.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>In this paper, I aim to clarify how sample-size justification can be aligned with study purpose and to describe design-appropriate alternatives to traditional hypothesis-testing power analysis in common, non-inferential nursing studies.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This conceptual discussion of the methodological and statistical literature examines the assumptions underlying classical power analysis and identifies study designs in which these assumptions may not hold. The discussion groups commonly use quantitative designs by primary purpose and presents alternative justification frameworks.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Part A illustrates common research contexts in which traditional power analysis may not be appropriate and presents the methodological rationale for alternative approaches to sample-size justification. In Part B, alternative approaches are presented, such as confidence-interval precision planning and detectable-effect reporting that offer more coherent and transparent approaches to sample-size reasoning. A summary table provides practical sample-size calculation guide with examples. Part C contains a practice experience reflection.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Aligning sample-size justification with the methodological purpose of the study strengthens transparency, improves conceptual coherence, and enhances ethical accountability. Misapplication of power analysis can lead to unstable effect-size estimates, misinterpretation, and inefficient use of research resources. A design-specific approach can therefore help maintain methodological rigor across quantitative nursing research.</p>","PeriodicalId":49723,"journal":{"name":"Nursing Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nursing Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/NNR.0000000000000949","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Sample-size justification remains a central element of quantitative research, yet classical a priori power analysis is frequently applied to designs for which it is neither required nor conceptually appropriate. When power calculations are used indiscriminately, they may misalign with the aims of studies that do not need them. This poses challenges for researchers and student nurses, particularly those without specialist training in statistics, and can lead to methodological inconsistencies across the published nursing literature.

Objectives: In this paper, I aim to clarify how sample-size justification can be aligned with study purpose and to describe design-appropriate alternatives to traditional hypothesis-testing power analysis in common, non-inferential nursing studies.

Methods: This conceptual discussion of the methodological and statistical literature examines the assumptions underlying classical power analysis and identifies study designs in which these assumptions may not hold. The discussion groups commonly use quantitative designs by primary purpose and presents alternative justification frameworks.

Results: Part A illustrates common research contexts in which traditional power analysis may not be appropriate and presents the methodological rationale for alternative approaches to sample-size justification. In Part B, alternative approaches are presented, such as confidence-interval precision planning and detectable-effect reporting that offer more coherent and transparent approaches to sample-size reasoning. A summary table provides practical sample-size calculation guide with examples. Part C contains a practice experience reflection.

Discussion: Aligning sample-size justification with the methodological purpose of the study strengthens transparency, improves conceptual coherence, and enhances ethical accountability. Misapplication of power analysis can lead to unstable effect-size estimates, misinterpretation, and inefficient use of research resources. A design-specific approach can therefore help maintain methodological rigor across quantitative nursing research.

定量研究中的样本量论证。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Nursing Research
Nursing Research 医学-护理
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
4.00%
发文量
102
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Nursing Research is a peer-reviewed journal celebrating over 60 years as the most sought-after nursing resource; it offers more depth, more detail, and more of what today''s nurses demand. Nursing Research covers key issues, including health promotion, human responses to illness, acute care nursing research, symptom management, cost-effectiveness, vulnerable populations, health services, and community-based nursing studies. Each issue highlights the latest research techniques, quantitative and qualitative studies, and new state-of-the-art methodological strategies, including information not yet found in textbooks. Expert commentaries and briefs are also included. In addition to 6 issues per year, Nursing Research from time to time publishes supplemental content not found anywhere else.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书