The BT product as a signal dependent sample size estimate in hypothesis testing: an application to linear/nonlinear discrimination in bandwidth limited systems

Author(s):  
N. Stevenson ◽  
E. Palmer ◽  
J. Smeathers ◽  
B. Boashash
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kewei Chen ◽  
Xiaojuan Guo ◽  
Rong Pan ◽  
Chengjie Xiong ◽  
Danielle J. Harvey ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 589-598
Author(s):  
Hong Zhu ◽  
Xiaohan Xu ◽  
Chul Ahn

Paired experimental design is widely used in clinical and health behavioral studies, where each study unit contributes a pair of observations. Investigators often encounter incomplete observations of paired outcomes in the data collected. Some study units contribute complete pairs of observations, while the others contribute either pre- or post-intervention observations. Statistical inference for paired experimental design with incomplete observations of continuous outcomes has been extensively studied in literature. However, sample size method for such study design is sparsely available. We derive a closed-form sample size formula based on the generalized estimating equation approach by treating the incomplete observations as missing data in a linear model. The proposed method properly accounts for the impact of mixed structure of observed data: a combination of paired and unpaired outcomes. The sample size formula is flexible to accommodate different missing patterns, magnitude of missingness, and correlation parameter values. We demonstrate that under complete observations, the proposed generalized estimating equation sample size estimate is the same as that based on the paired t-test. In the presence of missing data, the proposed method would lead to a more accurate sample size estimate comparing with the crude adjustment. Simulation studies are conducted to evaluate the finite-sample performance of the generalized estimating equation sample size formula. A real application example is presented for illustration.


2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 526
Author(s):  
Okki Trinanda ◽  
Astri Yuza Sari

<p><em>Research linking selfie behavior and tourism management is very rarely implemented. Selfie behavior is more researched as part of psychology that studies human behavior. This study aims to find out (1) the influence of Selfie Tourism on Electronic Word of Mouth, (2) the influence of Selfie Tourism on Re-Visit Intention, and (3) the influence of Electronic Word of Mouth on Re-Visit Intention. This study uses estimates based on the number of parameters obtained by the sample size of 452 respondents with accidental sampling. Respondents who were included in this study were foreign tourists and domestic tourists who visited the tourism sites in West Sumatra for the first time. While hypothesis testing uses SEM. In this study all relationships between variables were found to be positive and significant. The implication of this study is that tourism managers not only pay attention to aspects of service such as hospitality, cleanliness and so on, but also provide attractive tourist attractions to be photographed and distributed to social media.</em></p><p><em><br /></em></p><p><em>Penelitian yang menghubungkan perilaku selfie dan manajemen pariwisata sangat jarang dilaksanakan. Perilaku selfie lebih banyak diteliti sebagai bagian dari psikologi yang mempelajari perilaku manusia. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui (1) pengaruh Selfie Tourism terhadap Electronic Word of Mouth, (2) pengaruh Selfie Tourism terhadap Re-Visit Intention, dan (3) pengaruh Electronic Word of Mouth pada Re-Visit Intention. Penelitian ini menggunakan jumlah parameter yang diperoleh dengan ukuran sampel 452 responden dengan accidental sampling. Responden yang dikunjungi oleh wisatawan asing dan wisatawan domestik yang mengunjungi situs pariwisata di Sumatera Barat untuk pertama kalinya. Sedangkan pengujian hipotesis menggunakan SEM. Dalam penelitian ini semua hubungan antar variabel ditemukan positif dan signifikan. Implikasi dari penelitian ini adalah bahwa manajer pariwisata tidak hanya memperhatikan layanan dan kebersihan tetapi juga menyediakan media sosial.</em></p>


2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Lewis ◽  
K. Bromley ◽  
C. J. Sutton ◽  
G. McCray ◽  
H. L. Myers ◽  
...  

Abstract Background The current CONSORT guidelines for reporting pilot trials do not recommend hypothesis testing of clinical outcomes on the basis that a pilot trial is under-powered to detect such differences and this is the aim of the main trial. It states that primary evaluation should focus on descriptive analysis of feasibility/process outcomes (e.g. recruitment, adherence, treatment fidelity). Whilst the argument for not testing clinical outcomes is justifiable, the same does not necessarily apply to feasibility/process outcomes, where differences may be large and detectable with small samples. Moreover, there remains much ambiguity around sample size for pilot trials. Methods Many pilot trials adopt a ‘traffic light’ system for evaluating progression to the main trial determined by a set of criteria set up a priori. We construct a hypothesis testing approach for binary feasibility outcomes focused around this system that tests against being in the RED zone (unacceptable outcome) based on an expectation of being in the GREEN zone (acceptable outcome) and choose the sample size to give high power to reject being in the RED zone if the GREEN zone holds true. Pilot point estimates falling in the RED zone will be statistically non-significant and in the GREEN zone will be significant; the AMBER zone designates potentially acceptable outcome and statistical tests may be significant or non-significant. Results For example, in relation to treatment fidelity, if we assume the upper boundary of the RED zone is 50% and the lower boundary of the GREEN zone is 75% (designating unacceptable and acceptable treatment fidelity, respectively), the sample size required for analysis given 90% power and one-sided 5% alpha would be around n = 34 (intervention group alone). Observed treatment fidelity in the range of 0–17 participants (0–50%) will fall into the RED zone and be statistically non-significant, 18–25 (51–74%) fall into AMBER and may or may not be significant and 26–34 (75–100%) fall into GREEN and will be significant indicating acceptable fidelity. Discussion In general, several key process outcomes are assessed for progression to a main trial; a composite approach would require appraising the rules of progression across all these outcomes. This methodology provides a formal framework for hypothesis testing and sample size indication around process outcome evaluation for pilot RCTs.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martyn Lewis ◽  
Kieran Bromley ◽  
Christopher J Sutton ◽  
Gareth McCray ◽  
Helen Lucy Myers ◽  
...  

Abstract BackgroundThe current CONSORT guidelines for reporting pilot trials do not recommend hypothesis testing of clinical outcomes on the basis that a pilot trial is under-powered to detect such differences and this is the aim of the main trial. It states that primary evaluation should focus on descriptive analysis of feasibility/process outcomes (e.g. recruitment, adherence, treatment fidelity). Whilst the argument for not testing clinical outcomes is justifiable, the same does not necessarily apply to feasibility/process outcomes, where differences may be large and detectable with small samples. Moreover, there remains much ambiguity around sample size for pilot trials. MethodsMany pilot trials adopt a ‘traffic light’ system for evaluating progression to the main trial determined by a set of criteria set up a priori. We construct a hypothesis-testing approach for binary feasibility outcomes focused around this system that tests against being in the RED zone (unacceptable outcome) based on an expectation of being in the GREEN zone (acceptable outcome) and choose the sample size to give high power to reject being in the RED zone if the GREEN zone holds true. Pilot point estimates falling in the RED zone will be statistically non-significant and in the GREEN zone will be significant; the AMBER zone designates potentially acceptable outcome and statistical tests may be significant or non-significant.ResultsFor example, in relation to treatment fidelity, if we assume the upper boundary of the RED zone is 50% and the lower boundary of the GREEN zone is 75% (designating unacceptable and acceptable treatment fidelity, respectively), the sample size required for analysis given 90% power and one-sided 5% alpha would be around n=35 (intervention group alone). Observed treatment fidelity in the range of 0-17 participants (0-50%) will fall into the RED zone and be statistically non-significant; 18-26 (51-74%) fall into AMBER and may or may not be significant; 27-35 (75-100%) fall into GREEN and will be significant indicating acceptable fidelity.DiscussionIn general, several key process outcomes are assessed for progression to a main trial; a composite approach would require appraising the rules of progression across all these outcomes. This methodology provides a formal framework for hypothesis-testing and sample size indication around process outcome evaluation for pilot RCTs.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document