4.1 Article

Comparison of methods for estimating the intraclass correlation coefficient for binary responses in cancer prevention cluster randomized trials

Journal

CONTEMPORARY CLINICAL TRIALS
Volume 33, Issue 5, Pages 869-880

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.cct.2012.05.004

Keywords

Cancer screening; Cluster randomized trials; Correlated binary data; Intervention trials; Intraclass correlation coefficient

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health [CA137827, CA16042]
  2. National Institutes of Health grant [CA109091]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) is a fundamental parameter of interest in cluster randomized trials as it can greatly affect statistical power. We compare common methods of estimating the ICC in cluster randomized trials with binary outcomes, with a specific focus on their application to community-based cancer prevention trials with primary outcome of self-reported cancer screening. Using three real data sets from cancer screening intervention trials with different numbers and types of clusters and cluster sizes, we obtained point estimates and 95% confidence intervals for the ICC using five methods: the analysis of variance estimator, the Fleiss-Cuzick estimator, the Pearson estimator, an estimator based on generalized estimating equations and an estimator from a random intercept logistic regression model. We compared estimates of the ICC for the overall sample and by study condition. Our results show that ICC estimates from different methods can be quite different, although confidence intervals generally overlap. The ICC varied substantially by study condition in two studies, suggesting that the common practice of assuming a common ICC across all clusters in the trial is questionable. A simulation study confirmed pitfalls of erroneously assuming a common ICC. Investigators should consider using sample size and analysis methods that allow the ICC to vary by study condition. (c) 2012 Published by Elsevier Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available