4.5 Article

Adjusting power for a baseline covariate in linear models

期刊

STATISTICS IN MEDICINE
卷 22, 期 16, 页码 2535-2551

出版社

JOHN WILEY & SONS LTD
DOI: 10.1002/sim.1341

关键词

multivariate analysis of covariance; univariate approach to repeated measures; Hotelling-Lawley trace; Huynh-Feldt test; Geisser-Greenhouse test; Box test

资金

  1. AHRQ HHS [T32 HS 00058-04] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NCI NIH HHS [K07 CA088811-01A1, K07 CA088811, P01 CA 47982-04] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The analysis of covariance provides a common approach to adjusting for a baseline covariate in medical research. With Gaussian errors, adding random covariates does not change either the theory or the computations of general linear model data analysis. However, adding random covariates does change the theory and computation of power analysis. Many data analysts fail to fully account for this complication in planning a study. We present our results in five parts. (i) A review of published results helps document the importance of the problem and the limitations of available methods. (ii) A taxonomy for general linear multivariate models and hypotheses allows identifying a particular problem. (iii) We describe how random covariates introduce the need to consider quantiles and conditional values of power. (iv) We provide new exact and approximate methods for power analysis of a range of multivariate models with a Gaussian baseline covariate, for both small and large samples. The new results apply to the Hotelling-Lawley test and the four tests in the univariate approach to repeated measures (unadjusted, Huynh-Feldt, Geisser-Greenhouse, Box). The techniques allow rapid calculation and an interactive, graphical approach to sample size choice. (v) Calculating power for a clinical trial of a treatment for increasing bone density illustrates the new methods. We particularly recommend using quantile power with a new Satterthwaite-style approximation. Copyright (C) 2003 John Wiley Sons, Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据