# "Observed Power" and other "Power" Issues

**URL:** <https://discourse.datamethods.org/t/observed-power-and-other-power-issues/731>\
**Category:** formal\
**Tags:** power, reporting\
**Created:** [September 26, 2018, 1:11pm UTC](https://discourse.datamethods.org/t/observed-power-and-other-power-issues/731 "2018-09-26T13:11:01Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 30

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![f2harrell](https://discourse.datamethods.org/user_avatar/discourse.datamethods.org/f2harrell/32/165_2.png) [@f2harrell](https://discourse.datamethods.org/u/f2harrell)\
**Post date:** [December 21, 2018, 8:43pm UTC](https://discourse.datamethods.org/t/observed-power-and-other-power-issues/731/30 "2018-12-21T20:43:36Z")

</div>

> [@ADAlthousePhD](#):
>
> I do appreciate those concerns. In the stuck-between-rock-and-hard place that Tim (and others, including myself) may find ourselves in - a paper returned with a reviewer comment that wishes to dismiss a finding of “no relationship” by stating “your study must be underpowered, please include a post-hoc power calculation” - do you consider the approach suggested above at all reasonable?

Yes I do find it reasonable, especially if you footnote it with a caveat or two. Even better would be to stick with a compatibility interval.

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.datamethods.org/t/observed-power-and-other-power-issues/731)._