GraphPad Home Library Power of completed experiments with "not significant" results Why it is not helpful to compute the power to detect the difference actually observed? It is never possible to just ask "what is the power of this experiment?". Rather, you must ask "what is the power of this experiment to detect an effect of some specified size?". Which effect size should you use? How large a difference should you be looking for? It only makes sense to do a power analysis when you think about the data scientifically. It isn't purely a statistical question, but rather a scientific one. Some programs try to take the thinking out of the process by computing only a single value for power. These programs compute the power to detect the effect size (or difference, relative risk, etc.) actually observed in that experiment. The result is sometimes called observed power, and the procedure is sometimes called a post-hoc power analysis or retrospective power analysis. But... If your study reached a conclusion that the difference is not statistically significant, then by definition its power to detect the effect actually observed is very low. You learn nothing new by such a calculation. You already know that the difference was not statistically significant, and now you know that the power of the study to detect that particular difference is low. Not helpful.  What would be helpful is to know the power of the study to detect some hypothetical difference that you think would have been scientifically or clinically worth detecting. These articles discuss the futility of post-hoc power analyses: M Levine and MHH Ensom, Post Hoc Power Analysis: An Idea Whose Time Has Passed, Pharmacotherapy 21:405-409, 2001. SN Goodman and JA Berlin, The Use of Predicted Confidence Intervals When Planning Experiments and the Misuse of Power When Interpreting the Results, Annals Internal Medicine 121: 200-206, 1994. Lenth, R. V. (2001), Some Practical Guidelines for Effective Sample Size Determination, The American Statistician, 55, 187-193