Journal
STATISTICS IN MEDICINE
Volume 25, Issue 24, Pages 4334-4344Publisher
WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/sim.2682
Keywords
change score; analysis of covariance; Lord's paradox; repeated measures; baselines
Ask authors/readers for more resources
The case for preferring analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) to the simple analysis of change scores (SACS) has often been made. Nevertheless, claims continue to be made that analysis of covariance is biased if the groups are not equal at baseline. If the required equality were in expectation only, this would permit the use of ANCOVA in randomized clinical trials but not in observational studies. The discussion is related to Lord's paradox. In this note, it is shown, however that it is not a necessary condition for groups to be equal at baseline, not even in expectation, for ANCOVA to provide unbiased estimates of treatment effects. It is also shown that although many situations can be envisaged where ANCOVA is biased it is very difficult to imagine circumstances under which SACS would then be unbiased and a causal interpretation could be made. Copyright (c) 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available