IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/csdana/v53y2009i3p596-602.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Effect of imbalance and intracluster correlation coefficient in cluster randomized trials with binary outcomes

Author

Listed:
  • Ahn, Chul
  • Hu, Fan
  • Skinner, Celette Sugg

Abstract

Cluster randomization trials are increasingly popular among healthcare researchers. Intact groups (called 'clusters') of subjects are randomized to receive different interventions, and all subjects within a cluster receive the same intervention. In cluster randomized trials, a cluster is the unit of randomization, and a subject is the unit of analysis. Variation in cluster sizes can affect the sample size estimate or the power of the study. [Guittet, L., Ravaud, P., Giraudeau, B., 2006. Planning a cluster randomized trial with unequal cluster sizes: Practical issues involving continuous outcomes. BMC Medical Research Methodology 6 (17), 1-15] investigated the impact of an imbalance in cluster size on the power of trials with continuous outcomes through simulations. In this paper, we examine the impact of cluster size variation and intracluster correlation on the power of the study for binary outcomes through simulations. Because the sample size formula for cluster randomization trials is based on a large sample approximation, we evaluate the performance of the sample size formula with small sample sizes through simulation. Simulation study findings show that the sample size formula (mp) accounting for unequal cluster sizes yields empirical powers closer to the nominal power than the sample size formula (ma) for the average cluster size method. The differences in sample size estimates and empirical powers between ma and mp get smaller as the imbalance in cluster sizes gets smaller.

Suggested Citation

  • Ahn, Chul & Hu, Fan & Skinner, Celette Sugg, 2009. "Effect of imbalance and intracluster correlation coefficient in cluster randomized trials with binary outcomes," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 53(3), pages 596-602, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:csdana:v:53:y:2009:i:3:p:596-602
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167-9473(08)00447-7
    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

    as
    1. Simpson, J.M. & Klar, N. & Donner, A., 1995. "Accounting for cluster randomization: A review of primary prevention trials, 1990 through 1993," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 85(10), pages 1378-1383.
    2. Ahn, Chul, 1997. "An evaluation of simple methods for the estimation of a common odds ratio in clusters with variable size," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 47-61, March.
    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. Jonathan L. Blitstein & Peter J. Hannan & David M. Murray & William R. Shadish, 2005. "Increasing the Degrees of Freedom in Existing Group Randomized Trials," Evaluation Review, , vol. 29(3), pages 241-267, June.
    2. Henry A. Feldman & Sonja M. McKinlay & Minoo Niknian, 1996. "Batch Sampling To Improve Power in a Community Trial," Evaluation Review, , vol. 20(3), pages 244-274, June.
    3. S. Mukhopadhyay & S. W. Looney, 2009. "Quantile dispersion graphs to compare the efficiencies of cluster randomized designs," Journal of Applied Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(11), pages 1293-1305.
    4. Sherri P. Varnell & David M. Murray & William L. Baker, 2001. "An Evaluation of Analysis Options for the One-Group-Per-Condition Design," Evaluation Review, , vol. 25(4), pages 440-453, August.
    5. Paul J. Gruenewald, 1997. "Analysis Approaches To Community Evaluation," Evaluation Review, , vol. 21(2), pages 209-230, April.
    6. Sanchez-Meca, Julio & Marin-Martinez, Fulgencio, 2000. "Testing the significance of a common risk difference in meta-analysis," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 299-313, May.

    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:eee:csdana:v:53:y:2009:i:3:p:596-602. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/csda .

    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.