Power Sample Multiplier
Calculator
Results
- Sample size multiplier
- 6.249999
- Required sample size
- 399.999999
- Effect magnitude
- 0.4
Academic results
| Sample size multiplier | 6.249999 |
| Required sample size | 399.999999 |
| Effect magnitude | 0.4 |
formula-map diagram
- Sample size multiplier
- 6.249999
- Required sample size
- 399.999999
- Effect magnitude
- 0.4
Formula breakdown
Formula
n ∝ 1 ÷ d²= 6.25
Note
This is a simplified model. Grading rules, credit systems and statistical assumptions vary by institution and study design; check your syllabus, registrar or methods guide before relying on these figures.
More in Academic and research
See all →Frequently asked questions
What is statistical power, in plain terms?+
Power is the probability that a study correctly detects a real effect when one actually exists, commonly set at 80% or 90% as a target. Low power means a real effect could easily be missed, producing a false negative.
Why does higher desired power require more participants?+
To reliably detect smaller and smaller differences from random noise, you need more data to reduce the uncertainty around your estimate; power and sample size trade off directly, so increasing one target (power) increases the other requirement (sample size) for a fixed effect size.
How does expected effect size affect the required sample multiplier?+
Smaller expected effects require dramatically larger sample sizes to detect reliably, since the signal-to-noise ratio is lower; a study looking for a subtle effect needs a much bigger multiplier applied to its base sample size than one expecting a strong, obvious effect.
What happens if a study is underpowered?+
An underpowered study has a meaningfully high chance of failing to detect a real effect (a Type II error) even when one exists, and any significant results it does find tend to overestimate the true effect size, a phenomenon known as the winner's curse.
Is 80% power a strict scientific standard?+
It's a widely used convention rather than a strict law, chosen as a reasonable balance between resource cost and risk of missing a true effect. Some fields or high-stakes studies opt for 90% or higher when the cost of a false negative is severe.