A method of power assessment for tests comparing several treatments with a control

A comparison study on modeling of clustered and overdispersed count data for multiple comparisons

Data collected in various scientific fields are count data. One way to analyze such data is to compare the individual levels of the factor treatment using multiple comparisons. However, the measured individuals are often clustered - e.g. according to litter or rearing. This must be considered when estimating the parameters by a repeated measurement model. In addition, ignoring the overdispersion to which count data is prone leads to an increase of the type one error rate. We carry out simulation studies using several different data settings and compare different multiple contrast tests with parameter estimates from generalized estimation equations and generalized linear mixed models in order to observe coverage and rejection probabilities. We generate overdispersed, clustered count data in small samples as can be observed in many biological settings. We have found that the generalized estimation equations outperform generalized linear mixed models if the variance-sandwich estimator is correctly specified. Furthermore, generalized linear mixed models show problems with the convergence rate under certain data settings, but there are model implementations with lower implications exists. Finally, we use an example of genetic data to demonstrate the application of the multiple contrast test and the problems of ignoring strong overdispersion.

Simultaneous small-sample comparisons in longitudinal or multi-endpoint trials using multiple marginal models

Simultaneous inference in longitudinal, repeated-measures, and multi-endpoint designs can be onerous, especially when trying to find a reasonable joint model from which the interesting effects and covariances are estimated. A novel statistical approach known as multiple marginal models greatly simplifies the modelling process: the core idea is to "marginalise" the problem and fit multiple small models to different portions of the data, and then estimate the overall covariance matrix in a subsequent, separate step. Using these estimates guarantees strong control of the family-wise error rate, however only asymptotically. In this paper, we show how to make the approach also applicable to small-sample data problems. Specifically, we discuss the computation of adjusted P values and simultaneous confidence bounds for comparisons of randomised treatment groups as well as for levels of a nonrandomised factor such as multiple endpoints, repeated measures, or a series of points in time or space. We illustrate the practical use of the method with a data example.

Sample size determination for testing whether an identified treatment is best

Laska and Meisner (1989, Biometrics 45, 1139-1151) dealt with the problem of testing whether an identified treatment belonging to a set of k + 1 treatments is better than each of the other k treatments. They calculated sample size tables for k = 2 when using multiple t-tests or Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney tests, both under normality assumptions. In this paper, we provide sample size formulas as well as tables for sample size determination for k > or = 2 when t-tests under normality or Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney tests under general distribution assumptions are used.