IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ibn/gjhsjl/v14y2022i7p32.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cumulative Equivalence: Controlling for Inter-Individual Differences at Baseline Characteristic Testing of RCTs

Author

Listed:
  • John Damiao

Abstract

Randomized control trials (RCTs) are regarded as the gold standard for intervention research. The randomization process is intended to establish comparability between groups, so that the study outcomes can be attributable to the intervention, rather than group differences. The purpose of this paper is to emphasize the inherent risks of conducting multiple tests in the establishment of equivalency at baseline while omitting the cumulative effect of small group differences in RCTs. Randomization does not thoroughly prevent differences in group averages at the specific characteristic level. Any baseline differences that benefit the intervention group when accumulated over multiple categories of demographic characteristics described herein as cumulative inequivalence can significantly impact the internal validity of RCTs. This paper describes a procedure for assessing for cumulative inequivalence, as well as procedures such as re-randomization prior to intervention to establish comparability and thus promote cumulative equivalence of RCTs.

Suggested Citation

  • John Damiao, 2022. "Cumulative Equivalence: Controlling for Inter-Individual Differences at Baseline Characteristic Testing of RCTs," Global Journal of Health Science, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 14(7), pages 1-32, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:ibn:gjhsjl:v:14:y:2022:i:7:p:32
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/gjhs/article/download/0/0/47365/50760
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/gjhs/article/view/0/47365
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Uwe Saint-Mont, 2015. "Randomization Does Not Help Much, Comparability Does," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(7), pages 1-24, July.
    2. Victora, C.G. & Habicht, J.-P. & Bryce, J., 2004. "Evidence-Based Public Health: Moving Beyond Randomized Trials," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 94(3), pages 400-405.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. John A Maluccio & Tia Palermo & Suneetha Kadiyala & Rahul Rawat, 2015. "Improving Health-Related Quality of Life among People Living with HIV: Results from an Impact Evaluation of a Food Assistance Program in Uganda," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(8), pages 1-17, August.
    2. Sonja Jungreitmayr & Susanne Ring-Dimitriou & Birgit Trukeschitz & Siegfried Eisenberg & Cornelia Schneider, 2021. "Effects of an Information and Communication Technology-Based Fitness Program on Strength and Balance in Female Home Care Service Users," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(15), pages 1-14, July.
    3. Kelly, Michael & Morgan, Antony & Ellis, Simon & Younger, Tricia & Huntley, Jane & Swann, Catherine, 2010. "Evidence based public health: A review of the experience of the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) of developing public health guidance in England," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 71(6), pages 1056-1062, September.
    4. Hatcher, Abigail M & McBride, Ruari-Santiago & Rebombo, Dumisani & Munshi, Shehnaz & Khumalo, Mzwakhe & Christofides, Nicola, 2020. "Process evaluation of a community mobilization intervention for preventing men’s partner violence use in peri-urban South Africa," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    5. Jéssica Cordeiro Rodrigues & Mariana Arias Avila & Patricia Driusso, 2021. "Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation for women with primary dysmenorrhea: Study protocol for a randomized controlled clinical trial with economic evaluation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(5), pages 1-11, May.
    6. Rhodes, Tim & Lancaster, Kari, 2019. "Evidence-making interventions in health: A conceptual framing," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 238(C), pages 1-1.
    7. Senier, Laura & Smollin, Leandra & Lee, Rachael & Nicoll, Lauren & Shields, Michael & Tan, Catherine, 2018. "Navigating the evidentiary turn in public health: Sensemaking strategies to integrate genomics into state-level chronic disease prevention programs," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 211(C), pages 207-215.
    8. Zucchelli, E & Jones, A.M & Rice, N, 2010. "The evaluation of health policies through microsimulation methods," Health, Econometrics and Data Group (HEDG) Working Papers 10/03, HEDG, c/o Department of Economics, University of York.
    9. Cláudia Fançony & Ânia Soares & João Lavinha & Henrique Barros & Miguel Brito, 2019. "Efficacy of Nutrition and WASH/Malaria Educational Community-Based Interventions in Reducing Anemia in Preschool Children from Bengo, Angola: Study Protocol of a Randomized Controlled Trial," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(3), pages 1-17, February.
    10. Margaret Dalziel, 2018. "Why are there (almost) no randomised controlled trial-based evaluations of business support programmes?," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 4(1), pages 1-9, December.
    11. Sonia Hernández-Cordero & Mireya Vilar-Compte & Kathrin Litwan & Vania Lara-Mejía & Natalia Rovelo-Velázquez & Mónica Ancira-Moreno & Matthias Sachse-Aguilera & Fernanda Cobo-Armijo, 2022. "Implementation of Breastfeeding Policies at Workplace in Mexico: Analysis of Context Using a Realist Approach," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(4), pages 1-20, February.
    12. Marian Meller & Stephan Litschig, 2014. "Saving Lives: Evidence from a Conditional Food Supplementation Program," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 49(4), pages 1014-1052.
    13. Fadiga, Mohamadou L. & Katjiuongua, Hikuepi B., 2014. "Issues and strategies in ex-post evaluation of intervention against animal disease outbreaks and spread," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(P2), pages 418-424.
    14. Draper, Alizon Katharine & Hewitt, Gillian & Rifkin, Susan, 2010. "Chasing the dragon: Developing indicators for the assessment of community participation in health programmes," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 71(6), pages 1102-1109, September.
    15. Rianne Honigh-de Vlaming & Annemien Haveman-Nies & Inge Bos-Oude Groeniger & Eveline Hooft van Huysduynen & Lisette Groot & Pieter Veer, 2014. "Loneliness Literacy Scale: Development and Evaluation of an Early Indicator for Loneliness Prevention," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 116(3), pages 989-1001, May.
    16. Zhongdan, Chen & Schilling, Robert F. & Shanbo, Wei & Caiyan, Cai & Wang, Zhou & Jianguo, Shan, 2008. "The 100% Condom Use Program: A demonstration in Wuhan, China," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 10-21, February.
    17. Feldman, Matthew B. & Tran, Trang T. & Boucher, Lisa M. & Abdelqader, Faisal & Raker, Amanda R. & Hile, Stephen J., 2023. "A process and impact evaluation of a peer-led HIV self-management program," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    18. Eugenio Zucchelli & Andrew M Jones & Nigel Rice, 2012. "The evaluation of health policies through dynamic microsimulation methods," International Journal of Microsimulation, International Microsimulation Association, vol. 5(1), pages 2-20.
    19. Timothy O Abuya & Greg Fegan & Abdinasir A Amin & Willis S Akhwale & Abdisalan M Noor & Robert W Snow & Vicki Marsh, 2010. "Evaluating Different Dimensions of Programme Effectiveness for Private Medicine Retailer Malaria Control Interventions in Kenya," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(1), pages 1-9, January.
    20. Biljana Macura & Laura Del Duca & Adriana Soto & Naomi Carrard & Louisa Gosling & Karin Hannes & James Thomas & Lewnida Sara & Marni Sommer & Hugh S. Waddington & Sarah Dickin, 2021. "PROTOCOL: What is the impact of complex WASH interventions on gender and social equality outcomes in low‐ and middle‐income countries? A mixed‐method systematic review protocol," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(2), June.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • R00 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General - - - General
    • Z0 - Other Special Topics - - General

    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:ibn:gjhsjl:v:14:y:2022:i:7:p:32. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Canadian Center of Science and Education (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cepflch.html .

    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.