Justifying small-n research in scientifically amazing settings: challenging the notion that only 'big-n' studies are worthwhile

摘要

if you have ever competed for external research support, you know the drill. Every grant starts with some fantastic ideas that are honed, filtered, and shaped into a grant proposal. Primary aims lead to hypothesis statements, definitions of primary outcomes, and a statistical analysis section. At some point, sample size must be determined and justified. Perhaps more than ever, granting agencies are forced to make difficult choices about which studies to fund among many excellent proposals. Their funding decision is partly based on reviewers' evaluations of the likelihood that the investigative team will arrive at scientifically valuable information. Often, reviewers consider rejecting the null hypothesis as the valuable outcome of a proposed study, and for that, sample size plays an important role.