Sample Size and Power Calculations for Additive Interactions.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: VanderWeele TJ
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4249707 | biostudies-literature | 2012 Aug
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Sample Size and Power Calculations for Additive Interactions.
Epidemiologic methods 20120801 1
Similar Datasets
Project description:Background and Objectives:Researchers typically use Cohen's guidelines of Pearson's r = .10, .30, and .50, and Cohen's d = 0.20, 0.50, and 0.80 to interpret observed effect sizes as small, medium, or large, respectively. However, these guidelines were not based on quantitative estimates and are only recommended if field-specific estimates are unknown. This study investigated the distribution of effect sizes in both individual differences research and group differences research in gerontology to provide estimates of effect sizes in the field. Research Design and Methods:Effect sizes (Pearson's r, Cohen's d, and Hedges' g) were extracted from meta-analyses published in 10 top-ranked gerontology journals. The 25th, 50th, and 75th percentile ranks were calculated for Pearson's r (individual differences) and Cohen's d or Hedges' g (group differences) values as indicators of small, medium, and large effects. A priori power analyses were conducted for sample size calculations given the observed effect size estimates. Results:Effect sizes of Pearson's r = .12, .20, and .32 for individual differences research and Hedges' g = 0.16, 0.38, and 0.76 for group differences research were interpreted as small, medium, and large effects in gerontology. Discussion and Implications:Cohen's guidelines appear to overestimate effect sizes in gerontology. Researchers are encouraged to use Pearson's r = .10, .20, and .30, and Cohen's d or Hedges' g = 0.15, 0.40, and 0.75 to interpret small, medium, and large effects in gerontology, and recruit larger samples.
| S-EPMC6736231 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The appraisals of treatment-covariate interaction have theoretical and substantial implications in all scientific fields. Methodologically, the detection of interaction between categorical treatment levels and continuous covariate variables is analogous to the homogeneity of regression slopes test in the context of ANCOVA. A fundamental assumption of ANCOVA is that the regression slopes associating the response variable with the covariate variable are presumed constant across treatment groups. The validity of homogeneous regression slopes accordingly is the most essential concern in traditional ANCOVA and inevitably determines the practical usefulness of research findings. In view of the limited results in current literature, this article aims to present power and sample size procedures for tests of heterogeneity between two regression slopes with particular emphasis on the stochastic feature of covariate variables. Theoretical implications and numerical investigations are presented to explicate the utility and advantage for accommodating covariate properties. The exact approach has the distinct feature of accommodating the full distributional properties of normal covariates whereas the simplified approximate methods only utilize the partial information of covariate variances. According to the overall accuracy and robustness, the exact approach is recommended over the approximate methods as a reliable tool in practical applications. The suggested power and sample size calculations can be implemented with the supplemental SAS and R programs.
| S-EPMC5435249 | biostudies-literature
Project description:When calculating sample size or power for stepped wedge or other types of longitudinal cluster randomized trials, it is critical that the planned sampling structure be accurately specified. One common assumption is that participants will provide measurements in each trial period, that is, a closed cohort, and another is that each participant provides only one measurement during the course of the trial. However some studies have an "open cohort" sampling structure, where participants may provide measurements in variable numbers of periods. To date, sample size calculations for longitudinal cluster randomized trials have not accommodated open cohorts. Feldman and McKinlay (1994) provided some guidance, stating that the participant-level autocorrelation could be varied to account for the degree of overlap in different periods of the study, but did not indicate precisely how to do so. We present sample size and power formulas that allow for open cohorts and discuss the impact of the degree of "openness" on sample size and power. We consider designs where the number of participants in each cluster will be maintained throughout the trial, but individual participants may provide differing numbers of measurements. Our results are a unification of closed cohort and repeated cross-sectional sample results of Hooper et al (2016), and indicate precisely how participant autocorrelation of Feldman and McKinlay should be varied to account for an open cohort sampling structure. We discuss different types of open cohort sampling schemes and how open cohort sampling structure impacts on power in the presence of decaying within-cluster correlations and autoregressive participant-level errors.
| S-EPMC7217159 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We consider the problem of calculating power and sample size for tests based on generalized estimating equations (GEE), that arise in studies involving clustered or correlated data (e.g., longitudinal studies and sibling studies). Previous approaches approximate the power of such tests using the asymptotic behavior of the test statistics under fixed alternatives. We develop a more accurate approach in which the asymptotic behavior is studied under a sequence of local alternatives that converge to the null hypothesis at root-m rate, where m is the number of clusters. Based on this approach, explicit sample size formulae are derived for Wald and quasi-score test statistics in a variety of GEE settings. Simulation results show that in the important special case of logistic regression with exchangeable correlation structure, previous approaches can inflate the projected sample size (to obtain nominal 90% power using the Wald statistic) by over 10%, whereas the proposed approach provides an accuracy of around 2%.
| S-EPMC3903421 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In a randomized controlled clinical trial that assesses treatment efficacy, a common objective is to assess the association of a measured biomarker response endpoint with the primary study endpoint in the active treatment group, using a case-cohort, case-control, or two-phase sampling design. Methods for power and sample size calculations for such biomarker association analyses typically do not account for the level of treatment efficacy, precluding interpretation of the biomarker association results in terms of biomarker effect modification of treatment efficacy, with detriment that the power calculations may tacitly and inadvertently assume that the treatment harms some study participants. We develop power and sample size methods accounting for this issue, and the methods also account for inter-individual variability of the biomarker that is not biologically relevant (e.g., due to technical measurement error). We focus on a binary study endpoint and on a biomarker subject to measurement error that is normally distributed or categorical with two or three levels. We illustrate the methods with preventive HIV vaccine efficacy trials and include an R package implementing the methods. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
| S-EPMC4965346 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Equivalent testing has been strongly recommended for demonstrating the comparability of treatment effects in a wide variety of research fields including medical studies. Although the essential properties of the favorable two one-sided tests of equivalence have been addressed in the literature, the associated power and sample size calculations were illustrated mainly for selecting the most appropriate approximate method. Moreover, conventional power analysis does not consider the allocation restrictions and cost issues of different sample size choices. To extend the practical usefulness of the two one-sided tests procedure, this article describes exact approaches to sample size determinations under various allocation and cost considerations. Because the presented features are not generally available in common software packages, both R and SAS computer codes are presented to implement the suggested power and sample size computations for planning equivalence studies. The exact power function of the TOST procedure is employed to compute optimal sample sizes under four design schemes allowing for different allocation and cost concerns. The proposed power and sample size methodology should be useful for medical sciences to plan equivalence studies.
| S-EPMC5012670 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In recent years, the number of studies using a cluster-randomized design has grown dramatically. In addition, the cluster-randomized crossover design has been touted as a methodological advance that can increase efficiency of cluster-randomized studies in certain situations. While the cluster-randomized crossover trial has become a popular tool, standards of design, analysis, reporting and implementation have not been established for this emergent design. We address one particular aspect of cluster-randomized and cluster-randomized crossover trial design: estimating statistical power. We present a general framework for estimating power via simulation in cluster-randomized studies with or without one or more crossover periods. We have implemented this framework in the clusterPower software package for R, freely available online from the Comprehensive R Archive Network. Our simulation framework is easy to implement and users may customize the methods used for data analysis. We give four examples of using the software in practice. The clusterPower package could play an important role in the design of future cluster-randomized and cluster-randomized crossover studies. This work is the first to establish a universal method for calculating power for both cluster-randomized and cluster-randomized clinical trials. More research is needed to develop standardized and recommended methodology for cluster-randomized crossover studies.
| S-EPMC3338707 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The existence of interactive effects of a dichotomous treatment variable on the relationship between the continuous predictor and response variables is an essential issue in biological and medical sciences. Also, considerable attention has been devoted to raising awareness of the often-untenable assumption of homogeneous error variance among treatment groups. Although the procedures for detecting interactions between treatment and predictor variables are well documented in the literature, the corresponding problem of power and sample size calculations has received relatively little attention. In order to facilitate interaction design planning, this article describes power and sample size procedures for the extended Welch test of difference between two regression slopes under heterogeneity of variance. Two different formulations are presented to explicate the implications of appropriate reliance on the predictor variables. The simplified method only utilizes the partial information of predictor variances and has the advantages of statistical and computational simplifications. However, extensive numerical investigations showed that it is relatively less accurate than the more profound procedure that accommodates the full distributional features of the predictors. According to the analytic justification and empirical performance, the proposed approach gives reliable solutions to power assessment and sample size determination in the detection of interaction effects. A numerical example involving kidney weigh and body weigh of crossbred diabetic and normal mice is used to illustrate the suggested procedures with flexible allocation schemes. Moreover, the organ and body weights data is incorporated in the accompany SAS and R software programs to illustrate the ease and convenience of the proposed techniques for design planning in interactive research.
| S-EPMC6296670 | biostudies-literature
Project description:As a new way of reporting treatment effect, the restricted mean time in favor (RMT-IF) of treatment measures the net average time the treated have had a less serious outcome than the untreated over a specified time window. With multiple outcomes of differing severity, this offers a more interpretable and data-efficient alternative to the prototypical restricted mean (event-free) survival time. To facilitate its adoption in actual trials, we develop simple approaches to power and sample size calculations and implement them in user-friendly R programs. In doing so we model the bivariate outcomes of death and a nonfatal event using a Gumbel-Hougaard copula with component-wise proportional hazards structures, under which the RMT-IF estimand is derived in closed form. In a standard set-up for censoring, the variance of the nonparametric effect-size estimator is simplified and computed via a hybrid of numerical and Monte Carlo integrations, allowing us to compute the power and sample size as functions of component-wise hazard ratios. Simulation studies show that these formulas provide accurate approximations in realistic settings. To illustrate our methods, we consider designing a new trial to evaluate treatment effect on the composite outcomes of death and cancer relapse in lymph node-positive breast cancer patients, with baseline parameters calculated from a previous study.
| S-EPMC10473860 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The generalized linear mixed model (GLIMMIX) provides a powerful technique to model correlated outcomes with different types of distributions. The model can now be easily implemented with SAS PROC GLIMMIX in version 9.1. For binary outcomes, linearization methods of penalized quasi-likelihood (PQL) or marginal quasi-likelihood (MQL) provide relatively accurate variance estimates for fixed effects. Using GLIMMIX based on these linearization methods, we derived formulas for power and sample size calculations for longitudinal designs with attrition over time. We found that the power and sample size estimates depend on the within-subject correlation and the size of random effects. In this article, we present tables of minimum sample sizes commonly used to test hypotheses for longitudinal studies. A simulation study was used to compare the results. We also provide a Web link to the SAS macro that we developed to compute power and sample sizes for correlated binary outcomes.
| S-EPMC3737998 | biostudies-literature