Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Accuracy and Errors in Hypothesis Testing01:13

Accuracy and Errors in Hypothesis Testing

Hypothesis testing is a fundamental statistical tool that begins with the assumption that the null hypothesis H0 is true. During this process, two types of errors can occur: Type I and Type II. A Type I error refers to the incorrect rejection of a true null hypothesis, while a Type II error involves the failure to reject a false null hypothesis.
In hypothesis testing, the probability of making a Type I error, denoted as α, is commonly set at 0.05. This significance level indicates a 5% chance...
Errors In Hypothesis Tests01:14

Errors In Hypothesis Tests

When performing a hypothesis test, there are four possible outcomes depending on the actual truth (or falseness) of the null hypothesis and the decision to reject or not.
Statistical Significance01:37

Statistical Significance

Once data is collected from both the experimental and the control groups, a statistical analysis is conducted to find out if there are meaningful differences between the two groups. A statistical analysis determines how likely any difference found is due to chance (and thus not meaningful). In psychology, group differences are considered meaningful, or significant, if the odds that these differences occurred by chance alone are 5 percent or less. Stated another way, if we repeated this...
Expected Frequencies in Goodness-of-Fit Tests01:19

Expected Frequencies in Goodness-of-Fit Tests

A goodness-of-fit test is conducted to determine whether the observed frequency values are statistically similar to the frequencies expected for the dataset. Suppose the expected frequencies for a dataset are equal such as when predicting the frequency of any number appearing when casting a die. In that case, the expected frequency is the ratio of the total number of observations (n) to the number of categories (k).
One-Way ANOVA: Equal Sample Sizes01:15

One-Way ANOVA: Equal Sample Sizes

One-Way ANOVA can be performed on three or more samples with equal or unequal sample sizes. When one-way ANOVA is performed on two datasets with samples of equal sizes, it can be easily observed that the computed F statistic is highly sensitive to the sample mean.
Different sample means can result in different values for the variance estimate: variance between samples. This is because the variance between samples is calculated as the product of the sample size and the variance between the...

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Pharmacotherapeutic Interventions for Sensorineural Hearing Loss: A Scoping Review.

Audiology research·2026
Same author

Choroidal coloboma masquerading as regressed retinoblastoma.

BMJ case reports·2026
Same author

In-office bleaching effect with different concentrations of hydrogen peroxide on enamel color and demineralization.

Bioinformation·2026
Same author

Perinatal Neuroprotective Strategies and Intraventricular Hemorrhage in Preterm Infants ≤32 Weeks' Gestational Age: A Prospective Study With a Historical Control Cohort.

Cureus·2026
Same author

CLnc-Pred: A Machine Learning Approach to Predict Long Non-Coding RNAs in Crops.

Current genomics·2026
Same author

AgriBioNER: A Named Entity Recognition Tool for Identification of ncRNA and Diseases in Agricultural Literature.

Current genomics·2026
Same journal

Associations Between Self-Reported Workload and Measures of Speech Recognition in Adults Across the Lifespan.

American journal of audiology·2026
Same journal

Emotion-Specific Associations Between Perceived Sound Quality and Auditory Emotion Recognition in Children With Cochlear Implants.

American journal of audiology·2026
Same journal

Development and Validation of Modified Basic English Lexicon Sentences for Use With a Pediatric Population.

American journal of audiology·2026
Same journal

Risk of Noise-Induced Hearing Loss: A Survey of Texas Shop Teachers.

American journal of audiology·2026
Same journal

Auditory Spatial Processing in Patients With Vestibular Migraine.

American journal of audiology·2026
Same journal

Subclinical Vestibular Involvement in Chronic Suppurative Otitis Media: Perforation Size and Mediolateral Postural Sway.

American journal of audiology·2026
See all related articles
  1. Home
  3. Effect Sizes And Statistical Power In Hearing Aid Research.
  1. Home
  3. Effect Sizes And Statistical Power In Hearing Aid Research.

Related Experiment Video

Systematic Hearing Performance Evaluation Process for Adolescents with Cochlear Implantation at Early Ages
06:04

Systematic Hearing Performance Evaluation Process for Adolescents with Cochlear Implantation at Early Ages

Published on: March 24, 2023

Effect Sizes and Statistical Power in Hearing Aid Research.

Preeti Pandey1,2,3, Marien Graham4, Anu Sharma3

  • 1Department of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora.

American Journal of Audiology
|June 9, 2026

View abstract on PubMed

Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Hearing aid research uses outdated effect size benchmarks. This study proposes new, field-specific benchmarks (0.1, 0.2, 0.5) to improve accuracy and guide sample size planning for better replicability.

More Related Videos

Enhanced Cochlear Coverage and Hearing Preservation in High-Frequency Hearing Loss via Electric Acoustic Stimulation with Longer Electrode
03:49

Enhanced Cochlear Coverage and Hearing Preservation in High-Frequency Hearing Loss via Electric Acoustic Stimulation with Longer Electrode

Published on: October 11, 2024

Related Experiment Videos

Systematic Hearing Performance Evaluation Process for Adolescents with Cochlear Implantation at Early Ages
06:04

Systematic Hearing Performance Evaluation Process for Adolescents with Cochlear Implantation at Early Ages

Published on: March 24, 2023

Enhanced Cochlear Coverage and Hearing Preservation in High-Frequency Hearing Loss via Electric Acoustic Stimulation with Longer Electrode
03:49

Enhanced Cochlear Coverage and Hearing Preservation in High-Frequency Hearing Loss via Electric Acoustic Stimulation with Longer Electrode

Published on: October 11, 2024

Area of Science:

  • Audiology
  • Biostatistics
  • Clinical Research

Background:

  • Effect sizes in hearing aid research often rely on generic benchmarks (Cohen's 0.20, 0.50, 0.80).
  • These generic benchmarks may not accurately represent typical effect magnitudes in hearing aid studies.
  • This can lead to misinterpretation of results and inefficient sample size planning.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To determine the actual distribution of effect sizes in adult hearing aid research.
  • To establish field-specific benchmarks for interpreting effect sizes.
  • To estimate sample sizes needed for adequate statistical power in hearing aid trials.

Main Methods:

  • Systematic search of PubMed, CINAHL, and Embase for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on adult hearing aid use.
  • Calculation of absolute Hedges's g effect sizes from eligible studies.
  • Use of calculated percentiles (25th, 50th, 75th) as empirical benchmarks.

    • Main Results:

    • Analysis of 33 trials (4,471 participants) identified 63 effect sizes.
    • Empirical benchmarks (Hedges's g = 0.10, 0.22, 0.48) were smaller than Cohen's conventional values.
    • Few published studies achieved 80% power for a medium effect size using conventional benchmarks.

    Conclusions:

    • Hearing aid research effect sizes are typically smaller than suggested by generic benchmarks.
    • Recommended empirical benchmarks for hearing aid research are 0.1 (small), 0.2 (medium), and 0.5 (large).
    • Adopting these benchmarks improves interpretation accuracy, sample size planning, and study replicability.