IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpj/ijbist/v6y2010i1n11.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Comparison of the Statistical Power of Different Methods for the Analysis of Repeated Cross-Sectional Cluster Randomization Trials with Binary Outcomes

Author

Listed:
  • Austin Peter C

    (Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences)

Abstract

Repeated cross-sectional cluster randomization trials are cluster randomization trials in which the response variable is measured on a sample of subjects from each cluster at baseline and on a different sample of subjects from each cluster at follow-up. One can estimate the effect of the intervention on the follow-up response alone, on the follow-up responses after adjusting for baseline responses, or on the change in the follow-up response from the baseline response. We used Monte Carlo simulations to determine the relative statistical power of different methods of analysis. We examined methods of analysis based on generalized estimating equations (GEE) and a random effects model to account for within-cluster homogeneity. We also examined cluster-level analyses that treated the cluster as the unit of analysis. We found that the use of random effects models to estimate the effect of the intervention on the change in the follow-up response from the baseline response had lower statistical power compared to the other competing methods across a wide range of scenarios. The other methods tended to have similar statistical power in many settings. However, in some scenarios, those analyses that adjusted for the baseline response tended to have marginally greater power than did methods that did not account for the baseline response.

Suggested Citation

  • Austin Peter C, 2010. "A Comparison of the Statistical Power of Different Methods for the Analysis of Repeated Cross-Sectional Cluster Randomization Trials with Binary Outcomes," The International Journal of Biostatistics, De Gruyter, vol. 6(1), pages 1-32, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:bpj:ijbist:v:6:y:2010:i:1:n:11
    DOI: 10.2202/1557-4679.1179
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.2202/1557-4679.1179
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2202/1557-4679.1179?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bpj:ijbist:v:6:y:2010:i:1:n:11. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyter.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.