Sample size implications when biases are modelled rather than ignored

Summary. Realistic statistical modelling of observational data often suggests a statistical model which is not fully identified, owing to potential biases that are not under the control of study investigators. Bayesian inference can be implemented with such a model, ideally with the most precise prior knowledge that can be ascertained. However, as a consequence of the non‐identifiability, inference cannot be made arbitrarily accurate by choosing the sample size to be sufficiently large. In turn, this has consequences for sample size determination. The paper presents a sample size criterion that is based on a quantification of how much Bayesian learning can arise in a given non‐identified model. A global perspective is adopted, whereby choosing larger sample sizes for some studies necessarily implies that some other potentially worthwhile studies cannot be undertaken. This suggests that smaller sample sizes should be selected with non‐identified models, as larger sample sizes constitute a squandering of resources in making estimator variances very small compared with their biases. Particularly, consider two investigators planning the same study, one of whom admits to the potential biases at hand and consequently uses a non‐identified model, whereas the other pretends that there are no biases, leading to an identified but less realistic model. It is seen that the former investigator always selects a smaller sample size than the latter, with the difference being quite marked in some illustrative cases.