DOCSLIB.ORG

A Study of Target Effect Sizes in Randomised Controlled Trials Published in the Health Technology Assessment Journal Joanne C

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Study of Target Effect Sizes in Randomised Controlled Trials Published in the Health Technology Assessment Journal Joanne C Rothwell et al. Trials (2018) 19:544 https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-018-2886-y RESEARCH Open Access A study of target effect sizes in randomised controlled trials published in the Health Technology Assessment journal Joanne C. Rothwell1,3* , Steven A. Julious1 and Cindy L. Cooper2 Abstract Background: When designing a randomised controlled trial (RCT), an important consideration is the sample size required.Thisiscalculatedfromseveralcomponents;oneofwhichisthetargetdifference.Thisstudyaimsto review the currently reported methods of elicitation of the target difference as well as to quantify the target differences used in Health Technology Assessment (HTA)-funded trials. Methods: Trials were identified from the National Institute of Health Research Health Technology Assessment journal. A total of 177 RCTs published between 2006 and 2016 were assessed for eligibility. Eligibility was established by the design of the trial and the quality of data available. The trial designs were parallel-group, superiority RCTs with a continuous primary endpoint. Data were extracted and the standardised anticipated and observed effect size estimates were calculated. Exclusion criteria was based on trials not providing enough detail in the sample size calculation and results, and trials not being of parallel-group, superiority design. Results: A total of 107 RCTs were included in the study from 102 reports. The most commonly reported method for effect size derivation was a review of evidence and use of previous research (52.3%). This was common across all clinical areas. The median standardised target effect size was 0.30 (interquartile range: 0.20–0.38), with the median standardised observed effect size 0.11 (IQR 0.05–0.29). The maximum anticipated and observed effect sizes were 0.76 and 1.18, respectively. Only two trials had anticipated target values above 0.60. Conclusion: The most commonly reported method of elicitation of the target effect size is previous published research. The average target effect size was 0.3. A clear distinction between the target difference and the minimum clinically important difference is recommended when designing a trial. Transparent explanation of target difference elicitation is advised, with multiple methods including a review of evidence and opinion-seeking advised as the more optimal methods for effect size quantification. Keywords: Randomised controlled trial, Target difference, Effect size, HTA, Health technology assessment Background including randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of clin- The major funder of research into clinical interven- ical interventions in the UK [1, 2]. tions in the United Kingdom (UK) is the National In- One of the conditions of funding from the HTA is that stitute of Health Research (NIHR), and the biggest all studies must write a HTA report to be published in programme within that is the Health Technology As- the Healthy Technology Assessment (HTA) journal. Many sessment Programme (HTA). The HTA funds commis- trials which are funded by the HTA are also published in sioned and researcher-led health-related research journals such as the Lancet, the British Medical Journal and the New England Journal of Medicine. However, the * Correspondence: [email protected]; [email protected] HTA publishes all reports for trials it funds, irrespective 1School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK of the statistical significance achieved, and these reports 3The Medical Statistics Group, School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Regent Court, 30 Regent Street, Sheffield S1 have greater detail than journal articles can include. 4DA, UK Therefore, journals published in the HTA journal are Full list of author information is available at the end of the article © The Author(s). 2018 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. Rothwell et al. Trials (2018) 19:544 Page 2 of 13 suitable for review as they are published in detail, are of trials irrespective of their resulting statistical significance. high scientific standard and are published regardless of This ensures that reporting bias is not thought to be an im- the positive or negative nature of the results. portant problem in this study. Without the implications of A key component when designing a clinical trial is the reporting bias, and the high level of detail that is included sample size justification. If there are too few participants in HTA journal reports, the choice of the HTA journal al- then the trial may not result in statistical significance even lows greater understanding and transparency. if there is a true effect [3]. Conversely, having too many The search criteria consisted of including only RCTs participants could result in unethical practice; for ex- with a parallel-group design which had the objective to ample, randomising unnecessary numbers of participants assess superiority. The reason for this decision was due to a treatment which could may be shown to be inferior to the parallel-group design being the most commonly or harmful earlier and delaying the results of the study [3]. undertaken. This was confirmed by an initial scoping of The most sensitive part of the traditional sample size the HTA report. calculation is the anticipated difference or effect size be- The scoping consisted of assessing volumes 19 and 18 tween treatments. This difference can be categorised as for the number of reported RCTs and their designs. The either a clinically meaningful difference or a target dif- proportion of reports which were concerned with RCTs ference. A clinically meaningful difference is the value in these volumes were 23.9 and 20.6% for volumes 18 above which you would accept that one treatment is and 19, respectively. Of these RCTs, the percentage of clinically superior to another. However, it may not al- parallel-group superiority RCTs was 78% for volume 19 ways be desirable to use a clinically meaningful differ- and 80% for volume 18. ence. It could be that we need to demonstrate a Further exclusions were trials which did not contain difference greater than the minimum clinically meaning- the enough information for appropriate analyses to be ful difference to influence medical practice or policy. performed, trials with more than three arms due to the The target difference may then be set higher than the additional complexities involved in co-primary endpoints minimum clinically meaningful difference. Throughout and vaccination trials which also had multiple primary this paper we will use target difference when talking endpoints. These multiple primary endpoints resulted in about the effect size. more than one target difference in the various sample The elicitation of this target difference is a widely dis- size calculations, making data extraction complex. cussed issue, with a large review being performed in 2014 by Cook et al. which showed that a variety of Data extraction methods are used in establishing a target effect size [4, Each trial included had a unique identifier the Inter- 5]. This study draws from the findings of the DELTA national Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number project, a Medical Research Council (MRC)-funded (ISRCTN). Data that could not be extracted from the in- study which resulted in the publication by Cook et al., cluded trials were denoted as ‘Missing’. and has been performed as part of the DELTA2 project, Data extraction was completed using a series of Microsoft also funded by the Medical Research Council (MRC). Excel spreadsheets with a large variety of variables and The purpose of the DELTA2 project is to formulate guid- free-text boxes for further information if required. A full list ance on choosing the target difference for RCTs, aiming of extracted variables can be seen in the Appendix.The to assist trialists in the design of trials. This study uses the extraction was carried out by one reviewer over a period of definitions of target difference elicitation methods devel- 9 months. All categorical variables were coded prior to oped by the original DELTA project in the review. completion of data extraction, with further additions to the This study aims to assess the currently reported coding if this provided clarity for various design features. methods of elicitation of the target difference as well as For example, the clinical areas and elicitation methods were quantify the target differences used in HTA-funded trials. amended during data extraction to provide more informa- tion, as described in the next section. Methods Trial identification Categorisation of variables A review of RCTs published in the HTA journal between In the event of a categorical variable being subjective in 2006 and 2016 was performed. This time frame was chosen nature, or outside the immediate understanding of the primarily because based on an initial scoping study to as- reviewer, further advice was sought. This occurred for sess if there were sufficient eligible reports, as well as being two variables, the clinical area of the trial and the target recent and manageable for the author in the time frame. effect size elicitation method. The use of the HTA journal as the data source for this For the clinical categorisation, data were initially cate- study means that both statistically significant and gorised into 15 clinical areas. At an interim assessment non-significant trials are included, since the journal reports point, however, a large number of trials fell into the Rothwell et al. Trials (2018) 19:544 Page 3 of 13 ‘Other’ category (18.7%).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Effect Size (ES)
    Lee A. Becker <http://web.uccs.edu/lbecker/Psy590/es.htm> Effect Size (ES) © 2000 Lee A. Becker I. Overview II. Effect Size Measures for Two Independent Groups 1. Standardized difference between two groups. 2. Correlation measures of effect size. 3. Computational examples III. Effect Size Measures for Two Dependent Groups. IV. Meta Analysis V. Effect Size Measures in Analysis of Variance VI. References Effect Size Calculators Answers to the Effect Size Computation Questions I. Overview Effect size (ES) is a name given to a family of indices that measure the magnitude of a treatment effect. Unlike significance tests, these indices are independent of sample size. ES measures are the common currency of meta-analysis studies that summarize the findings from a specific area of research. See, for example, the influential meta- analysis of psychological, educational, and behavioral treatments by Lipsey and Wilson (1993). There is a wide array of formulas used to measure ES. For the occasional reader of meta-analysis studies, like myself, this diversity can be confusing. One of my objectives in putting together this set of lecture notes was to organize and summarize the various measures of ES. In general, ES can be measured in two ways: a) as the standardized difference between two means, or b) as the correlation between the independent variable classification and the individual scores on the dependent variable. This correlation is called the "effect size correlation" (Rosnow & Rosenthal, 1996). These notes begin with the presentation of the basic ES measures for studies with two independent groups. The issues involved when assessing ES for two dependent groups are then described.
    [Show full text]
  • Statistical Power, Sample Size, and Their Reporting in Randomized Controlled Trials
    Statistical Power, Sample Size, and Their Reporting in Randomized Controlled Trials David Moher, MSc; Corinne S. Dulberg, PhD, MPH; George A. Wells, PhD Objective.\p=m-\Todescribe the pattern over time in the level of statistical power and least 80% power to detect a 25% relative the reporting of sample size calculations in published randomized controlled trials change between treatment groups and (RCTs) with negative results. that 31% (22/71) had a 50% relative Design.\p=m-\Ourstudy was a descriptive survey. Power to detect 25% and 50% change, as statistically significant (a=.05, relative differences was calculated for the subset of trials with results in one tailed). negative Since its the of which a was used. Criteria were both publication, report simple two-group parallel design developed Freiman and has been cited to trial results as or and to the outcomes. colleagues2 classify positive negative identify primary more than 700 times, possibly indicating Power calculations were based on results from the primary outcomes reported in the seriousness with which investi¬ the trials. gators have taken the findings. Given Population.\p=m-\Wereviewed all 383 RCTs published in JAMA, Lancet, and the this citation record, one might expect an New England Journal of Medicine in 1975, 1980, 1985, and 1990. increase over time in the awareness of Results.\p=m-\Twenty-sevenpercent of the 383 RCTs (n=102) were classified as the consequences of low power in pub¬ having negative results. The number of published RCTs more than doubled from lished RCTs and, hence, an increase in 1975 to 1990, with the proportion of trials with negative results remaining fairly the reporting of sample size calcula¬ stable.
    [Show full text]
  • Statistical Inference Bibliography 1920-Present 1. Pearson, K
    StatisticalInferenceBiblio.doc © 2006, Timothy G. Gregoire, Yale University http://www.yale.edu/forestry/gregoire/downloads/stats/StatisticalInferenceBiblio.pdf Last revised: July 2006 Statistical Inference Bibliography 1920-Present 1. Pearson, K. (1920) “The Fundamental Problem in Practical Statistics.” Biometrika, 13(1): 1- 16. 2. Edgeworth, F.Y. (1921) “Molecular Statistics.” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 84(1): 71-89. 3. Fisher, R. A. (1922) “On the Mathematical Foundations of Theoretical Statistics.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series A, Containing Papers of a Mathematical or Physical Character, 222: 309-268. 4. Neyman, J. and E. S. Pearson. (1928) “On the Use and Interpretation of Certain Test Criteria for Purposes of Statistical Inference: Part I.” Biometrika, 20A(1/2): 175-240. 5. Fisher, R. A. (1933) “The Concepts of Inverse Probability and Fiducial Probability Referring to Unknown Parameters.” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series A, Containing Papers of Mathematical and Physical Character, 139(838): 343-348. 6. Fisher, R. A. (1935) “The Logic of Inductive Inference.” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 98(1): 39-82. 7. Fisher, R. A. (1936) “Uncertain inference.” Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 71: 245-258. 8. Berkson, J. (1942) “Tests of Significance Considered as Evidence.” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 37(219): 325-335. 9. Barnard, G. A. (1949) “Statistical Inference.” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B (Methodological), 11(2): 115-149. 10. Fisher, R. (1955) “Statistical Methods and Scientific Induction.” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B (Methodological), 17(1): 69-78.
    [Show full text]
  • Effect Sizes (ES) for Meta-Analyses the Standardized Mean Difference
    Kinds of Effect Sizes The effect size (ES) is the DV in the meta analysis. d - standardized mean difference Effect Sizes (ES) for Meta-Analyses – quantitative DV – between groups designs standardized gain score – pre-post differences • ES – d, r/eta & OR – quantitative DV • computing ESs – within-groups design • estimating ESs r – correlation/eta • ESs to beware! – converted from sig test (e.g., F, t, X2)or set of means/stds • interpreting ES – between or within-groups designs or tests of association • ES transformations odds ratio A useful ES: • ES adustments – binary DVs • is standardized – between groups designs • outlier identification Univariate (proportion or mean) • a standard error can be – prevalence rates calculated The Standardized Mean Difference (d) • A Z-like summary statistic that tells the size of the difference between the means of the two groups • Expresses the mean difference in Standard Deviation units – d = 1.00 Tx mean is 1 std larger than Cx mean – d = .50 Tx mean is 1/2 std larger than Cx mean – d = -.33 Tx mean is 1/3 std smaller than Cx mean • Null effect = 0.00 • Range from -∞ to ∞ • Cohen’s effect size categories – small = 0.20 medium = 0.50 large = 0.80 The Standardized Mean Difference (d) Equivalent formulas to calculate The Standardized Mean Difference (d) •Calculate Spooled using MSerror from a 2BG ANOVA √MSerror = Spooled • Represents a standardized group mean difference on an inherently continuous (quantitative) DV. • Uses the pooled standard deviation •Calculate Spooled from F, condition means & ns • There is a wide variety of d-like ESs – not all are equivalent – Some intended as sample descriptions while some intended as population estimates – define and use “n,” “nk” or “N” in different ways – compute the variability of mean difference differently – correct for various potential biases Equivalent formulas to calculate The Standardized Mean Difference (d) • Calculate d directly from significance tests – t or F • Calculate t or F from exact p-value & df.
    [Show full text]
  • One-Way Analysis of Variance F-Tests Using Effect Size
    PASS Sample Size Software NCSS.com Chapter 597 One-Way Analysis of Variance F-Tests using Effect Size Introduction A common task in research is to compare the averages of two or more populations (groups). We might want to compare the income level of two regions, the nitrogen content of three lakes, or the effectiveness of four drugs. The one-way analysis of variance compares the means of two or more groups to determine if at least one mean is different from the others. The F test is used to determine statistical significance. F tests are non-directional in that the null hypothesis specifies that all means are equal, and the alternative hypothesis simply states that at least one mean is different from the rest. The methods described here are usually applied to the one-way experimental design. This design is an extension of the design used for the two-sample t test. Instead of two groups, there are three or more groups. In our more advanced one-way ANOVA procedure, you are required to enter hypothesized means and variances. This simplified procedure only requires the input of an effect size, usually f, as proposed by Cohen (1988). Assumptions Using the F test requires certain assumptions. One reason for the popularity of the F test is its robustness in the face of assumption violation. However, if an assumption is not even approximately met, the significance levels and the power of the F test are invalidated. Unfortunately, in practice it often happens that several assumptions are not met. This makes matters even worse.
    [Show full text]
  • NBER TECHNICAL WORKING PAPER SERIES USING RANDOMIZATION in DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS RESEARCH: a TOOLKIT Esther Duflo Rachel Glenner
    NBER TECHNICAL WORKING PAPER SERIES USING RANDOMIZATION IN DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS RESEARCH: A TOOLKIT Esther Duflo Rachel Glennerster Michael Kremer Technical Working Paper 333 http://www.nber.org/papers/t0333 NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH 1050 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138 December 2006 We thank the editor T.Paul Schultz, as well Abhijit Banerjee, Guido Imbens and Jeffrey Kling for extensive discussions, David Clingingsmith, Greg Fischer, Trang Nguyen and Heidi Williams for outstanding research assistance, and Paul Glewwe and Emmanuel Saez, whose previous collaboration with us inspired parts of this chapter. The views expressed herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Bureau of Economic Research. © 2006 by Esther Duflo, Rachel Glennerster, and Michael Kremer. All rights reserved. Short sections of text, not to exceed two paragraphs, may be quoted without explicit permission provided that full credit, including © notice, is given to the source. Using Randomization in Development Economics Research: A Toolkit Esther Duflo, Rachel Glennerster, and Michael Kremer NBER Technical Working Paper No. 333 December 2006 JEL No. C93,I0,J0,O0 ABSTRACT This paper is a practical guide (a toolkit) for researchers, students and practitioners wishing to introduce randomization as part of a research design in the field. It first covers the rationale for the use of randomization, as a solution to selection bias and a partial solution to publication biases. Second, it discusses various ways in which randomization can be practically introduced in a field settings. Third, it discusses designs issues such as sample size requirements, stratification, level of randomization and data collection methods.
    [Show full text]
  • Effect Size Reporting Among Prominent Health Journals: a Case Study of Odds Ratios
    Original research BMJ EBM: first published as 10.1136/bmjebm-2020-111569 on 10 December 2020. Downloaded from Effect size reporting among prominent health journals: a case study of odds ratios Brian Chu ,1 Michael Liu,2 Eric C Leas,3 Benjamin M Althouse,4 John W Ayers5 10.1136/bmjebm-2020-111569 ABSTRACT Summary box Background The accuracy of statistical reporting 1 that informs medical and public health practice Perelman School of What is already known about this has generated extensive debate, but no studies Medicine, University of subject? Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, have evaluated the frequency or accuracy of ► Although odds ratios (ORs) are Pennsylvania, USA effect size (the magnitude of change in outcome frequently used, it is unknown 2University of Oxford, Oxford, as a function of change in predictor) reporting in whether ORs are reported correctly in UK prominent health journals. 3 peer- reviewed articles in prominent Department of Family Objective To evaluate effect size reporting Medicine and Public Health, health journals. practices in prominent health journals using the Division of Health Policy, University of California San case study of ORs. What are the new findings? Diego, La Jolla, California, USA Design Articles published in the American ► In a random sample of 400 articles 4Epidemiology, Institute for Journal of Public Health (AJPH), Journal of the from four journals, reporting of Disease Modeling, Bellevue, American Medical Association (JAMA), New ORs frequently omitted reporting Washington, USA England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) and PLOS effect sizes (magnitude of change 5 Department of Medicine, One from 1 January 2010 through 31 December in outcome as a function of change Division of Infectious 2019 mentioning the term ‘odds ratio’ in all in predictor).
    [Show full text]
  • Methods Research Report: Empirical Evidence of Associations Between
    Methods Research Report Empirical Evidence of Associations Between Trial Quality and Effect Size Methods Research Report Empirical Evidence of Associations Between Trial Quality and Effect Size Prepared for: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 540 Gaither Road Rockville, MD 20850 http://www.ahrq.gov Contract No. HHSA 290-2007-10062-I Prepared by: Southern California Evidence-based Practice Center Santa Monica, CA Investigators: Susanne Hempel, Ph.D. Marika J. Suttorp, M.S. Jeremy N.V. Miles, Ph.D. Zhen Wang, M.S. Margaret Maglione, M.P.P. Sally Morton, Ph.D. Breanne Johnsen, B.A. Diane Valentine, J.D. Paul G. Shekelle, M.D., Ph.D. AHRQ Publication No. 11-EHC045-EF June 2011 This report is based on research conducted by the Southern California Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) under contract to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Rockville, MD (Contract No. 290-2007-10062-I). The findings and conclusions in this document are those of the author(s), who are responsible for its contents; the findings and conclusions do not necessarily represent the views of AHRQ. Therefore, no statement in this report should be construed as an official position of AHRQ or of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The information in this report is intended to help health care decisionmakers—patients and clinicians, health system leaders, and policymakers, among others—make well-informed decisions and thereby improve the quality of health care services. This report is not intended to be a substitute for the application of clinical judgment.
    [Show full text]
  • Effect Size and Eta Squared James Dean Brown (University of Hawai‘I at Manoa)
    Shiken: JALT Testing & Evaluation SIG Newsletter. 12 (2) April 2008 (p. 38 - 43) Statistics Corner Questions and answers about language testing statistics: Effect size and eta squared James Dean Brown (University of Hawai‘i at Manoa) Question: In Chapter 6 of the 2008 book on heritage language learning that you co- edited with Kimi-Kondo Brown, a study comparing how three different groups of informants use intersentential referencing is outlined. On page 147 of that book, a MANOVA with a partial eta2 of .29 is outlined. There are several questions about this statistic. What does a “partial eta” measure? Are there other forms of eta that readers should know about? And how should one interpret a partial eta2 value of .29? Answer: I will answer your question about partial eta2 in two parts. I will start by defining and explaining eta2. Then I will circle back and do the same for partial eta2. Eta2 Eta2 can be defined as the proportion of variance associated with or accounted for by each of the main effects, interactions, and error in an ANOVA study (see Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001, pp. 54-55, and Thompson, 2006, pp. 317-319). Formulaically, eta2, or η 2 , is defined as follows: SS η 2 = effect SStotal Where: SSeffect = the sums of squares for whatever effect is of interest SStotal = the total sums of squares for all effects, interactions, and errors in the ANOVA Eta2 is most often reported for straightforward ANOVA designs that (a) are balanced (i.e., have equal cell sizes) and (b) have independent cells (i.e., different people appear in each cell).
    [Show full text]
  • How to Work with a Biostatistician for Power and Sample Size Calculations
    How to Work with a Biostatistician for Power and Sample Size Calculations Amber W. Trickey, PhD, MS, CPH Senior Biostatistician, S-SPIRE 1070 Arastradero #225 [email protected] Goal: Effective Statistical Collaboration Essentially all models are wrong but some are useful George E. P. Box Topics Research • Questions & Measures Fundamentals • Hypothesis Testing Power and • Estimation Parameters Sample Size • Assumptions Statistical • Communication Collaboration • Ethical Considerations Pro Tips Health Services/Surgical Outcomes Research Patient/Disease Hospital Health Policy • Comparative Effectiveness • Disparities Research • Policy Evaluation • Meta-analyses • Quality Measurement • Cost Effectiveness Analysis • Patient-centered Outcomes • Quality Improvement • Workforce • Decision Analysis • Patient Safety • Implementation Science [Ban 2016: Is Health Services Research Important to Surgeons?] Where to Begin? Research Question! Research Question (PICO) Patient population • Condition / disease, demographics, setting, time Intervention • Procedure, policy, process, treatment Comparison/Control group • No treatment, standard of care, non-exposed Outcome of interest • Treatment effects, patient-centered outcomes, healthcare utilization Example Research Question • Do hospitals with 200+ beds perform better than smaller hospitals? More developed question: specify population & outcome • Do large California hospitals with 200+ beds have lower surgical site infection rates for adults undergoing inpatient surgical procedures? • Population: California
    [Show full text]
  • Effect Size and Statistical Power Remember Type I and II Errors
    Dr. Robergs Fall, 2008 Effect Size and Statistical Power Prior to conducting the study (apriori), researchers should; • estimate the size of a mean difference that is meaningful • identify a type I error probability that is acceptable to them and the study/DV’s. • identify a type II error probability that is acceptable to them and the study/DV’s. • estimate the sample size needed to detect this mean difference, given the aforementioned type I and type II errors. “With a large enough sample size we can detect even a very small difference between the value of the population parameter stated in the null hypothesis and the true value, but the difference may be of no practical importance. (Conversely, with too small a sample size, a researcher may have little chance to detect an important difference.) PEP507: Research Methods Remember Type I and II Errors Type I Error: Probability of rejecting Ho when Ho is true (α) Stating that there is a difference when there really is not!!! Type II Error: Probability of retaining Ho when Ho is false (β) Stating that there is no difference Null Hypothesis when there really is!!! Reject Accept Yes correct Type II Mean error Difference No Type I correct error PEP507: Research Methods Effect Size 7 Stat Power 1 Dr. Robergs Fall, 2008 Effect Size and Statistical Power The Power of a test The probability of correctly rejecting a false Ho. Power = 1 - β Probability of type II error PEP507: Research Methods Factors Affecting Power 1. Size of the effect PEP507: Research Methods Effect Size 7 Stat Power 2 Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Some Practical Guidelines for Effective Sample-Size Determination
    Some Practical Guidelines for Effective Sample-Size Determination Russell V. Lenth∗ Department of Statistics University of Iowa March 1, 2001 Abstract Sample-size determination is often an important step in planning a statistical study—and it is usually a difficult one. Among the important hurdles to be surpassed, one must obtain an estimate of one or more error variances, and specify an effect size of importance. There is the temptation to take some shortcuts. This paper offers some suggestions for successful and meaningful sample-size determination. Also discussed is the possibility that sample size may not be the main issue, that the real goal is to design a high-quality study. Finally, criticism is made of some ill-advised shortcuts relating to power and sample size. Key words: Power; Sample size; Observed power; Retrospective power; Study design; Cohen’s effect measures; Equivalence testing; ∗I wish to thank John Castelloe, Kate Cowles, Steve Simon, two referees, an editor, and an associate editor for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper. Much of this work was done with the support of the Obermann Center for Advanced Studies at the University of Iowa. 1 1 Sample size and power Statistical studies (surveys, experiments, observational studies, etc.) are always better when they are care- fully planned. Good planning has many aspects. The problem should be carefully defined and operational- ized. Experimental or observational units must be selected from the appropriate population. The study must be randomized correctly. The procedures must be followed carefully. Reliable instruments should be used to obtain measurements. Finally, the study must be of adequate size, relative to the goals of the study.
    [Show full text]