Pseudoreplication: When n Is Smaller Than It Looks
Counting wells, cells or sections as independent replicates inflates n and turns noise into a result. This stop separates technical from biological replication and matches the analysis to the level that was actually randomised.
What a learner can do afterwards
- Given a protocol, state the true n and the level at which variation should be modelled
- Explain why averaging technical replicates is usually the honest first step
- Spot nesting in a published figure legend and say what analysis it demands
1 · Read
You learn the trap by name. Pseudoreplication means treating dependent repeats as independent evidence. Leaves from one plant or cells from one well share a hidden common cause, so counting them as separate trials inflates confidence without adding information.
You count the honest n at the level the treatment touched. Technical repeats still help by averaging down measurement noise, but you collapse them to one value per unit first. The analysis must model variation at the unit level, because that is where the randomness that matters lives.
You open a paper whose legend boasts n equals 12. Inside you find three treated wells with four cells read from each. You recount: three units, not twelve. The error bars describe readings, while the treatment touched wells.
You read every figure legend as a sampling confession. You ask how many units were assigned, how many readings came from each, and which level the error bars describe. Nesting like readings within patients or plots within fields demands a hierarchy respecting analysis.
You average technical repeats to one value per unit, and you model and report n at the assigned level.
2 · Watch
Take it off screen
Where it sits
Where this leads
8 questions wait behind this lesson, each with its answer explained. Every answer feeds the sky: stars light as they are learned, and dim when it is time to come back.