{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreifayue5o4paeiqxmliyjvsw2jerbp64dxjmexaaal7nhufukbr67u",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:wwyqal4cnqhuwyacdj7rqq3n/app.bsky.feed.post/3mf2m5yv2vba2"
  },
  "path": "/t/significance-versus-hypothesis-testing/28638#post_10",
  "publishedAt": "2026-02-15T20:56:23.000Z",
  "site": "https://discourse.datamethods.org",
  "tags": [
    "@s_doi",
    "@f2harrell",
    "Ethical Guidelines for Statistical Practice"
  ],
  "textContent": "> I think sample-size calculations are over-rated.\n\nIn response to my question, @s_doi and @f2harrell proposed alternate ways to estimate sample size. This is **not** the same as “abandoning” such calculations altogether, which would be ethically reckless, as explained at length by others elsewhere.\n\nFrom the American Statistical Association’s Ethical Guidelines for Statistical Practice, Principle D, part 2:\n\n> The ethical statistical practitioner makes informed recommendations for sample size and statistical practice methodology to avoid the use of excessive or inadequate numbers of subjects and excessive risk to subjects.\n\n(Part 3 is also relevant to those of us involved in animal studies, and make a related point about sample size.)",
  "title": "Significance versus hypothesis testing"
}