IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Testing the no-treatment effect based on a possibly misspecified accelerated failure time model


  • Hattori, Satoshi


The accelerated failure time model is a useful alternative to the Cox proportional hazard model. We investigate whether or not a misspecified accelerated failure time model provides a valid test of the no-treatment effect in randomized clinical trials. We show that the minimum dispersion statistic based on rank regression by Wei et al. (1990) must be modified in order to conduct valid tests under misspecification, whereas the resampling-based methods by Jin et al. (2003) are valid without any modification. Numerical studies are conducted to examine the small sample behavior of the modified minimum dispersion statistic and the resampling-based method. Finally, an illustration is given with a dataset from a clinical trial.

Suggested Citation

  • Hattori, Satoshi, 2012. "Testing the no-treatment effect based on a possibly misspecified accelerated failure time model," Statistics & Probability Letters, Elsevier, vol. 82(2), pages 371-377.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:stapro:v:82:y:2012:i:2:p:371-377
    DOI: 10.1016/j.spl.2011.10.016

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Hattori, Satoshi, 2006. "Some properties of misspecified additive hazards models," Statistics & Probability Letters, Elsevier, vol. 76(15), pages 1641-1646, September.
    2. A. G. DiRienzo & S. W. Lagakos, 2001. "Effects of model misspecification on tests of no randomized treatment effect arising from Cox's proportional hazards model," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 63(4), pages 745-757.
    3. Zhezhen Jin, 2003. "Rank-based inference for the accelerated failure time model," Biometrika, Biometrika Trust, vol. 90(2), pages 341-353, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


    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:eee:stapro:v:82:y:2012:i:2:p:371-377. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: .

    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.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.