A Monte Carlo Comparison of Seven ε-Adjustment Procedures in Repeated Measures Designs With Small Sample Sizes

1994 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 57-71 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen M. Quintana ◽  
Scott E. Maxwell
Keyword(s):  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Type I Error ◽  
Error Rates ◽  
Small Sample ◽  
Small Samples ◽  
Type I ◽  
Sample Sizes ◽  
Type I Error Rates ◽  
Repeated Measures Designs ◽  
Small Sample Sizes

The purpose of this study was to evaluate seven univariate procedures for testing omnibus null hypotheses for data gathered from repeated measures designs. Five alternate approaches are compared to the two more traditional adjustment procedures (Geisser and Greenhouse’s ε̂ and Huynh and Feldt’s ε̃), neither of which may be entirely adequate when sample sizes are small and the number of levels of the repeated factors is large. Empirical Type I error rates and power levels were obtained by simulation for conditions where small samples occur in combination with many levels of the repeated factor. Results suggested that alternate univariate approaches were improvements to the traditional approaches. One alternate approach in particular was found to be most effective in controlling Type I error rates without unduly sacrificing power.

scholarly journals Differences of Type I error rates for ANOVA and Multilevel-Linear-Models using SAS and SPSS for repeated measures designs

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicolas Haverkamp ◽  
André Beauducel
Keyword(s):  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Linear Models ◽  
Type I Error ◽  
Error Rates ◽  
Small Sample ◽  
Small Samples ◽  
Type I ◽  
Sample Sizes ◽  
Type I Error Rates ◽  
Multilevel Linear Models

  To derive recommendations on how to analyze longitudinal data, we examined Type I error rates of Multilevel Linear Models (MLM) and repeated measures Analysis of Variance (rANOVA) using SAS and SPSS. We performed a simulation with the following specifications: To explore the effects of high numbers of measurement occasions and small sample sizes on Type I error, measurement occasions of m = 9 and 12 were investigated as well as sample sizes of n = 15, 20, 25 and 30. Effects of non-sphericity in the population on Type I error were also inspected: 5,000 random samples were drawn from two populations containing neither a within-subject nor a between-group effect. They were analyzed including the most common options to correct rANOVA and MLM-results: The Huynh-Feldt-correction for rANOVA (rANOVA-HF) and the Kenward-Roger-correction for MLM (MLM-KR), which could help to correct progressive bias of MLM with an unstructured covariance matrix (MLM-UN). Moreover, uncorrected rANOVA and MLM assuming a compound symmetry covariance structure (MLM-CS) were also taken into account. The results showed a progressive bias for MLM-UN for small samples which was stronger in SPSS than in SAS. Moreover, an appropriate bias correction for Type I error via rANOVA-HF and an insufficient correction by MLM-UN-KR for n < 30 were found. These findings suggest MLM-CS or rANOVA if sphericity holds and a correction of a violation via rANOVA-HF. If an analysis requires MLM, SPSS yields more accurate Type I error rates for MLM-CS and SAS yields more accurate Type I error rates for MLM-UN.

Performance of Monte Carlo Permutation and Approximate Tests for Multivariate Means Comparisons With Small Sample Sizes When Parametric Assumptions are Violated

Methodology ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 60-70 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. Holmes Finch ◽  
Teresa Davenport
Keyword(s):  
Monte Carlo ◽  
Type I Error ◽  
Permutation Tests ◽  
Error Rates ◽  
Covariance Matrices ◽  
Small Sample ◽  
Type I ◽  
Permutation Testing ◽  
Sample Sizes ◽  
Type I Error Rates

Permutation testing has been suggested as an alternative to the standard F approximate tests used in multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA). These approximate tests, such as Wilks’ Lambda and Pillai’s Trace, have been shown to perform poorly when assumptions of normally distributed dependent variables and homogeneity of group covariance matrices were violated. Because Monte Carlo permutation tests do not rely on distributional assumptions, they may be expected to work better than their approximate cousins when the data do not conform to the assumptions described above. The current simulation study compared the performance of four standard MANOVA test statistics with their Monte Carlo permutation-based counterparts under a variety of conditions with small samples, including conditions when the assumptions were met and when they were not. Results suggest that for sample sizes of 50 subjects, power is very low for all the statistics. In addition, Type I error rates for both the approximate F and Monte Carlo tests were inflated under the condition of nonnormal data and unequal covariance matrices. In general, the performance of the Monte Carlo permutation tests was slightly better in terms of Type I error rates and power when both assumptions of normality and homogeneous covariance matrices were not met. It should be noted that these simulations were based upon the case with three groups only, and as such results presented in this study can only be generalized to similar situations.

scholarly journals Permutation-based methods for mediation analysis in studies with small sample sizes

PeerJ ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
pp. e8246
Author(s):  
Miranda E. Kroehl ◽  
Sharon Lutz ◽  
Brandie D. Wagner
Keyword(s):  
Indirect Effect ◽  
Mediation Analysis ◽  
Type I Error ◽  
Permutation Test ◽  
Error Rates ◽  
Small Sample ◽  
Type I ◽  
Permutation Testing ◽  
Sample Sizes ◽  
Small Sample Sizes

Background Mediation analysis can be used to evaluate the effect of an exposure on an outcome acting through an intermediate variable or mediator. For studies with small sample sizes, permutation testing may be useful in evaluating the indirect effect (i.e., the effect of exposure on the outcome through the mediator) while maintaining the appropriate type I error rate. For mediation analysis in studies with small sample sizes, existing permutation testing methods permute the residuals under the full or alternative model, but have not been evaluated under situations where covariates are included. In this article, we consider and evaluate two additional permutation approaches for testing the indirect effect in mediation analysis based on permutating the residuals under the reduced or null model which allows for the inclusion of covariates. Methods Simulation studies were used to empirically evaluate the behavior of these two additional approaches: (1) the permutation test of the Indirect Effect under Reduced Models (IERM) and (2) the Permutation Supremum test under Reduced Models (PSRM). The performance of these methods was compared to the standard permutation approach for mediation analysis, the permutation test of the Indirect Effect under Full Models (IEFM). We evaluated the type 1 error rates and power of these methods in the presence of covariates since mediation analysis assumes no unmeasured confounders of the exposure–mediator–outcome relationships. Results The proposed PSRM approach maintained type I error rates below nominal levels under all conditions, while the proposed IERM approach exhibited grossly inflated type I rates in many conditions and the standard IEFM exhibited inflated type I error rates under a small number of conditions. Power did not differ substantially between the proposed PSRM approach and the standard IEFM approach. Conclusions The proposed PSRM approach is recommended over the existing IEFM approach for mediation analysis in studies with small sample sizes.

scholarly journals Cluster Wild Bootstrapping to Handle Dependent Effect Sizes in Meta-Analysis with a Small Number of Studies

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Megha Joshi ◽  
James E Pustejovsky ◽  
S. Natasha Beretvas
Keyword(s):  
Effect Size ◽  
Type I Error ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Error Rates ◽  
Small Sample ◽  
Type I ◽  
Hypothesis Tests ◽  
Type I Error Rates ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Small Sample Correction

The most common and well-known meta-regression models work under the assumption that there is only one effect size estimate per study and that the estimates are independent. However, meta-analytic reviews of social science research often include multiple effect size estimates per primary study, leading to dependence in the estimates. Some meta-analyses also include multiple studies conducted by the same lab or investigator, creating another potential source of dependence. An increasingly popular method to handle dependence is robust variance estimation (RVE), but this method can result in inflated Type I error rates when the number of studies is small. Small-sample correction methods for RVE have been shown to control Type I error rates adequately but may be overly conservative, especially for tests of multiple-contrast hypotheses. We evaluated an alternative method for handling dependence, cluster wild bootstrapping, which has been examined in the econometrics literature but not in the context of meta-analysis. Results from two simulation studies indicate that cluster wild bootstrapping maintains adequate Type I error rates and provides more power than extant small sample correction methods, particularly for multiple-contrast hypothesis tests. We recommend using cluster wild bootstrapping to conduct hypothesis tests for meta-analyses with a small number of studies. We have also created an R package that implements such tests.

scholarly journals Improved Small Sample Inference Methods for a Mixed-Effects Model for Repeated Measures Approach in Incomplete Longitudinal Data Analysis

Stats ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 174-188
Author(s):  
Yoshifumi Ukyo ◽  
Hisashi Noma ◽  
Kazushi Maruo ◽  
Masahiko Gosho
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Type I Error ◽  
Mixed Effects ◽  
Error Rates ◽  
Small Sample ◽  
Mixed Effects Model ◽  
Model Complexity ◽  
Type I ◽  
Inference Methods

The mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) approach has been widely applied for longitudinal clinical trials. Many of the standard inference methods of MMRM could possibly lead to the inflation of type I error rates for the tests of treatment effect, when the longitudinal dataset is small and involves missing measurements. We propose two improved inference methods for the MMRM analyses, (1) the Bartlett correction with the adjustment term approximated by bootstrap, and (2) the Monte Carlo test using an estimated null distribution by bootstrap. These methods can be implemented regardless of model complexity and missing patterns via a unified computational framework. Through simulation studies, the proposed methods maintain the type I error rate properly, even for small and incomplete longitudinal clinical trial settings. Applications to a postnatal depression clinical trial are also presented.

Type I Error Rates for Welch’s Test and James’s Second-Order Test Under Nonnormality and Inequality of Variance When There Are Two Groups

1994 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 275-291 ◽  
Author(s):  
James Algina ◽  
T. C. Oshima ◽  
Wen-Ying Lin
Keyword(s):  
Degrees Of Freedom ◽  
Type I Error ◽  
Total Sample ◽  
Error Rates ◽  
Second Order ◽  
T Test ◽  
Type I ◽  
Sample Sizes ◽  
Unequal Variances ◽  
Type I Error Rates

Type I error rates were estimated for three tests that compare means by using data from two independent samples: the independent samples t test, Welch’s approximate degrees of freedom test, and James’s second-order test. Type I error rates were estimated for skewed distributions, equal and unequal variances, equal and unequal sample sizes, and a range of total sample sizes. Welch’s test and James’s test have very similar Type I error rates and tend to control the Type I error rate as well or better than the independent samples t test does. The results provide guidance about the total sample sizes required for controlling Type I error rates.

scholarly journals Assessment of Type I Error Rates and Power of Common Analysis Methods in Murine Obesity-Related Study: ‘Plasmode-Based’ Simulation (P13-011-19)

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Keisuke Ejima ◽  
Andrew Brown ◽  
Daniel Smith ◽  
Ufuk Beyaztas ◽  
David Allison
Keyword(s):  
Sample Size ◽  
Error Rate ◽  
Type I Error ◽  
Error Rates ◽  
T Test ◽  
Small Samples ◽  
Type I ◽  
Type I Error Rates ◽  
Type I Error Rate ◽  
Weight Distributions

Abstract Objectives Rigor, reproducibility and transparency (RRT) awareness has expanded over the last decade. Although RRT can be improved from various aspects, we focused on type I error rates and power of commonly used statistical analyses testing mean differences of two groups, using small (n ≤ 5) to moderate sample sizes. Methods We compared data from five distinct, homozygous, monogenic, murine models of obesity with non-mutant controls of both sexes. Baseline weight (7–11 weeks old) was the outcome. To examine whether type I error rate could be affected by choice of statistical tests, we adjusted the empirical distributions of weights to ensure the null hypothesis (i.e., no mean difference) in two ways: Case 1) center both weight distributions on the same mean weight; Case 2) combine data from control and mutant groups into one distribution. From these cases, 3 to 20 mice were resampled to create a ‘plasmode’ dataset. We performed five common tests (Student's t-test, Welch's t-test, Wilcoxon test, permutation test and bootstrap test) on the plasmodes and computed type I error rates. Power was assessed using plasmodes, where the distribution of the control group was shifted by adding a constant value as in Case 1, but to realize nominal effect sizes. Results Type I error rates were unreasonably higher than the nominal significance level (type I error rate inflation) for Student's t-test, Welch's t-test and permutation especially when sample size was small for Case 1, whereas inflation was observed only for permutation for Case 2. Deflation was noted for bootstrap with small sample. Increasing sample size mitigated inflation and deflation, except for Wilcoxon in Case 1 because heterogeneity of weight distributions between groups violated assumptions for the purposes of testing mean differences. For power, a departure from the reference value was observed with small samples. Compared with the other tests, bootstrap was underpowered with small samples as a tradeoff for maintaining type I error rates. Conclusions With small samples (n ≤ 5), bootstrap avoided type I error rate inflation, but often at the cost of lower power. To avoid type I error rate inflation for other tests, sample size should be increased. Wilcoxon should be avoided because of heterogeneity of weight distributions between mutant and control mice. Funding Sources This study was supported in part by NIH and Japan Society for Promotion of Science (JSPS) KAKENHI grant.

A Monte Carlo Study on the Performance of a Corrected Formula for ɛ̃ Suggested by Lecoutre

1994 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 119-126 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ru San Chen ◽  
William P. Dunlap
Keyword(s):  
Group Treatment ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Type I Error ◽  
Monte Carlo Study ◽  
Error Rates ◽  
Type I ◽  
Type I Errors ◽  
Repeated Measures Designs ◽  
Number Of Treatment ◽  
Present Simulation

Lecoutre (1991) has pointed out an error in the Huynh and Feldt (1976) formula for ɛ̃ used to adjust the degree of freedom for an approximate test in repeated measures designs with two or more independent groups. The present simulation study confirms that Lecoutre’s corrected ɛ̃ yields less biased estimation of population ɛ and reduces Type I error rates when compared to Huynh and Feldt’s (1976) ɛ̃. The increased accuracy in Type I errors for group-treatment interactions may become substantial when sample sizes are close to the number of treatment levels.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document