Dr van Dongen-Boomsma Replies
J Clin Psychiatry 2014;75(7):779 [letter]
© Copyright 2015 Physicians Postgraduate Press, Inc.
Purchase This PDF for $40.00
If you are not a paid subscriber, you may purchase the PDF.
(You'll need the free Adobe Acrobat Reader.)
Receive immediate full-text access to JCP. You can subscribe to JCP online-only ($86) or print + online ($156 individual).
With your subscription, receive a free PDF collection of the NCDEU Festschrift articles. Hurry! This offer ends December 31, 2011.
If you are a paid subscriber to JCP and do not yet have a username and password, activate your subscription now.
As a paid subscriber who has activated your subscription, you have access to the HTML and PDF versions of this item.
Click here to login.
Did you forget your password?
Still can't log in? Contact the Circulation Department at 1-800-489-1001 x4 or send email
Because this piece does not have an abstract, we have provided for your benefit the first 3 sentences of the full text.
To the Editor: My colleagues and I thank Dagenais and colleagues for their detailed letter, in which they ask for clarification of the following statement: “Post hoc, our sample had 80% power to detect a treatment effect of 0.90 . . . it is unlikely that our negative results were due to limited statistical power.” Hopefully, this letter will answer their questions.
First, we appreciate Dagenais and colleagues’ acknowledgment regarding the robust methodological design of our study. Further, we thank them for pointing out an error in the text. Although we actually did have an 80% power to detect a treatment effect of 0.90, the power to detect rather small differences between EEG neurofeedback and placebo neurofeedback indeed was much more limited, namely between 5% and 11%, as they show.