Search PubMed⌕ Search

PubMed · 8023049

Some power considerations when deciding to use transformations.

Abstract

Conventional wisdom suggests that for small data sets having substantial skew, one should attempt to determine the correct distributional form, if possible, and apply statistical methods appropriate for that distribution. Transformations such as the log or square root are often used. If an appropriate distributional form cannot be determined, a distribution-free procedure such as a rank transformation or a randomization test procedure can be used. To better appreciate the effect of such alternatives on both the type I error and power of detecting differences between treatment groups, simulation studies were conducted for responses having specific gamma G(r, theta) and log-normal ln(M, V) distributions. The gamma and log-normal distributions were selected so that they had the same first two moments. A simple two group design was assumed. The reference group always had an average disease level mu = 3.0 (mu = r theta for gamma, mu = M for log-normal), and the treatment group always had means whose reductions ranged from 0 per cent to 50 per cent. The effect of distributional type and the degree of skewness was investigated by varying the population parameter values. Six statistical test procedures were compared for the gamma distributions. All test procedures were robust relative to the type I error. The UMP test based on a ratio of sample means produced the greatest power for all combinations of n, r and RT. The power losses associated with the randomization test, the t-test on original scale, and the t-test on the square root scale were very small, (3 per cent to 6 per cent in absolute value) for n = 10 and 15, and less than 2 per cent for group sizes of 25 or more. The power loss associated with the t-test on the log scale was much larger, ranging from 5 per cent to 10 per cent smaller power than the t-test on original scale. The Wilcoxon rank test produced similar results to that of the LOG t-test for small samples. The power for the shifted LOG (X+c) test increased monotonically to the asymptotic value of the ORIG t-test. The same five test procedures based on differences in sample means were then compared for the corresponding log-normal distributions. The UMP test, that is, LOG(X), produced the highest power. There was very little power lost for the SQRT t-test. The loss in power varied between 2 per cent and 5 per cent for the RANK test.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

A Kingman, G Zion. Some power considerations when deciding to use transformations.. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.4780130537

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

On the exact interval estimation for the difference in paired areas under the ROC curves.

An important measure for comparison of accuracy between two diagnostic procedures is the difference in paired areas under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. Non-parametric and maximum likelihood methods have been proposed for interval estimation for the difference in paired areas under ROC curves. However, these two methods are asymptotic procedures and their performance in finite sample sizes has not been thoroughly investigated. We propose to use the concept of generalized pivotal quantities (GPQs) to construct an exact confidence interval for the difference in paired areas under ROC curves. A simulation study is conducted to empirically investigate the probability coverage and expected length of the three methods for various combinations of sample sizes, values of the area under the ROC curve and correlations. Simulation results demonstrate that the exact confidence interval based on the concept of GPQs provides not only sufficient probability coverage but also reasonable expected length. Numerical examples using published data sets illustrate the proposed method.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗

An efficient test for the analysis of dichotomized variables when the reliability is known.

A difference in an outcome variable between the treatment groups in a trial does not necessarily mean that there is a difference in the number of patients who experience relevant improvement on that variable. When the relevant improvement corresponds with an outcome or change in outcome that exceeds a certain threshold, the outcome variable can be dichotomized. A responder is a patient whose outcome exceeds the threshold. Comparisons can be made between the number of responders in the two treatment groups using logistic regression, or some other method to evaluate binary outcomes. An important disadvantage of this approach is the loss of power. In general, it is more efficient to test the difference between the mean values. We developed a statistical test that compares response rates for a dichotomized variable. It requires that an estimate of the reliability of the outcome variable is available. Simulations showed that the test was valid and robust over a wide range of distributions and sample sizes. The power was greater than the power of a chi(2) test, which would enable substantial reduction in the sample size.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗

Sample size determination for logistic regression revisited.

There is no consensus on the approach to compute the power and sample size with logistic regression. Some authors use the likelihood ratio test; some use the test on proportions; some suggest various approximations to handle the multivariate case. We advocate the use of the Wald test since the Z-score is routinely used for statistical significance testing of regression coefficients. The null-variance formula became popular from early studies, which contradicts modern software, which utilizes the method of maximum likelihood estimation (MLE), when the variance of the MLE is estimated at the MLE, not at the null. We derive general Wald-based power and sample size formulas for logistic regression and then apply them to binary exposure and confounder to obtain a closed-form expression. These formulas are applied to minimize the total sample size in a case-control study to achieve a given power by optimizing the ratio of controls to cases. Approximately, the optimal number of controls to cases is equal to the square root of the alternative odds ratio. Our sample size and power calculations can be carried out online at www.dartmouth.edu/ approximately eugened.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗