Increasing the Degrees of Freedom in Future Group Randomized Trials

Author:

Murray David M.1,Blitstein Jonathan L.2,Hannan Peter J.3,Shadish William R.4

Affiliation:

1. Division of Epidemiology, Statistics, and Prevention Research, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, Rockville, MD, USA

2. Center for Health Promotion Research, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA

3. Division of Epidemiology and Community Health, School of Public Health, The University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA

4. School of Social Science, Humanities and Arts, University of California, Merced, CA, USA

Abstract

Background: This article revisits an article published in Evaluation Review in 2005 on sample size estimation and power analysis for group-randomized trials. With help from a careful reader, we learned of an important error in the spreadsheet used to perform the calculations and generate the results presented in that article. As we studied the spreadsheet, we discovered other minor errors. When we corrected the errors, we found that the results were substantially different and that the conclusions reported in the original article were not always appropriate. Objective: This article corrects the errors and reports the results as they should have been reported originally. Method: Using a random-effects meta-analytic model, estimates of intraclass correlation were combined from two studies to guide sample size calculations for a new study. Results: The df* method can result in improved power or smaller studies when used a priori to plan future group-randomized trials, though the improvements will be modest in larger studies and will likely be insufficient to provide adequate power to small studies. Conclusion: Smaller group-randomized trials are often desirable, for example, as pilot studies to help plan for a full-scale efficacy trial, as replication studies, or in situations in which resource constraints prohibit a larger trial. We discuss the circumstances under which the df* method will be most helpful and the risks associated with conducting smaller studies.

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

General Social Sciences,Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous)

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3