Confidence intervals and sample size calculations for the weighted eta-squared effect sizes in one-way heteroscedastic ANOVA

Effect size reporting and interpreting practices have been extensively recommended in academic journals when primary outcomes of all empirical studies have been analyzed. This article presents an alternative approach to constructing confidence intervals of the weighted eta-squared effect size within the context of one-way heteroscedastic ANOVA models. It is shown that the proposed interval procedure has advantages over an existing method in its theoretical justification, computational simplicity, and numerical performance. For design planning, the corresponding sample size procedures for precise interval estimation of the weighted eta-squared association measure are also delineated. Specifically, the developed formulas compute the necessary sample sizes with respect to the considerations of expected confidence interval width and tolerance probability of interval width within a designated value. Supplementary computer programs are provided to aid the implementation of the suggested techniques in practical applications of ANOVA designs when the assumption of homogeneous variances is not tenable.     

Point-biserial correlation: Interval estimation,hypothesis testing,meta-analysis,and sample size determination

The point-biserial correlation is a commonly used measure of effect size in two-group designs. New estimators of point-biserial correlation are derived from different forms of a standardized mean difference. Point-biserial correlations are defined for designs with either fixed or random group sample sizes and can accommodate unequal variances. Confidence intervals and standard errors for the point-biserial correlation estimators are derived from the sampling distributions for pooled-variance and separate-variance versions of a standardized mean difference. The proposed point-biserial confidence intervals can be used to conduct directional two-sided tests, equivalence tests, directional non-equivalence tests, and non-inferiority tests. A confidence interval for an average point-biserial correlation in meta-analysis applications performs substantially better than the currently used methods. Sample size formulas for estimating a point-biserial correlation with desired precision and testing a point-biserial correlation with desired power are proposed. R functions are provided that can be used to compute the proposed confidence intervals and sample size formulas.     

Sample size for multiple regression: obtaining regression coefficients that are accurate, not simply significant

An approach to sample size planning for multiple regression is presented that emphasizes accuracy in parameter estimation (AIPE). The AIPE approach yields precise estimates of population parameters by providing necessary sample sizes in order for the likely widths of confidence intervals to be sufficiently narrow. One AIPE method yields a sample size such that the expected width of the confidence interval around the standardized population regression coefficient is equal to the width specified. An enhanced formulation ensures, with some stipulated probability, that the width of the confidence interval will be no larger than the width specified. Issues involving standardized regression coefficients and random predictors are discussed, as are the philosophical differences between AIPE and the power analytic approaches to sample size planning.     

Sample size requirements for the design of reliability studies: precision consideration

In multilevel modeling, the intraclass correlation coefficient based on the one-way random-effects model is routinely employed to measure the reliability or degree of resemblance among group members. To facilitate the advocated practice of reporting confidence intervals in future reliability studies, this article presents exact sample size procedures for precise interval estimation of the intraclass correlation coefficient under various allocation and cost structures. Although the suggested approaches do not admit explicit sample size formulas and require special algorithms for carrying out iterative computations, they are more accurate than the closed-form formulas constructed from large-sample approximations with respect to the expected width and assurance probability criteria. This investigation notes the deficiency of existing methods and expands the sample size methodology for the design of reliability studies that have not previously been discussed in the literature.     

Optimal sample sizes for precise interval estimation of Welch’s procedure under various allocation and cost considerations

Welch’s (Biometrika 29: 350–362, 1938) procedure has emerged as a robust alternative to the Student’s t test for comparing the means of two normal populations with unknown and possibly unequal variances. To facilitate the advocated statistical practice of confidence intervals and further improve the potential applicability of Welch’s procedure, in the present article, we consider exact approaches to optimize sample size determinations for precise interval estimation of the difference between two means under various allocation and cost considerations. The desired precision of a confidence interval is assessed with respect to the control of expected half-width, and to the assurance probability of interval half-width within a designated value. Furthermore, the design schemes in terms of participant allocation and cost constraints include (a) giving the ratio of group sizes, (b) specifying one sample size, (c) attaining maximum precision performance for a fixed cost, and (d) meeting a specified precision level for the least cost. The proposed methods provide useful alternatives to the conventional sample size procedures. Also, the developed programs expand the degree of generality for the existing statistical software packages and can be accessed at brm.psychonomic-journals.org/content/ supplemental.     

Confidence intervals for standardized linear contrasts of means

Most psychology journals now require authors to report a sample value of effect size along with hypothesis testing results. The sample effect size value can be misleading because it contains sampling error. Authors often incorrectly interpret the sample effect size as if it were the population effect size. A simple solution to this problem is to report a confidence interval for the population value of the effect size. Standardized linear contrasts of means are useful measures of effect size in a wide variety of research applications. New confidence intervals for standardized linear contrasts of means are developed and may be applied to between-subjects designs, within-subjects designs, or mixed designs. The proposed confidence interval methods are easy to compute, do not require equal population variances, and perform better than the currently available methods when the population variances are not equal.     

Accuracy in parameter estimation for targeted effects in structural equation modeling: sample size planning for narrow confidence intervals

In addition to evaluating a structural equation model (SEM) as a whole, often the model parameters are of interest and confidence intervals for those parameters are formed. Given a model with a good overall fit, it is entirely possible for the targeted effects of interest to have very wide confidence intervals, thus giving little information about the magnitude of the population targeted effects. With the goal of obtaining sufficiently narrow confidence intervals for the model parameters of interest, sample size planning methods for SEM are developed from the accuracy in parameter estimation approach. One method plans for the sample size so that the expected confidence interval width is sufficiently narrow. An extended procedure ensures that the obtained confidence interval will be no wider than desired, with some specified degree of assurance. A Monte Carlo simulation study was conducted that verified the effectiveness of the procedures in realistic situations. The methods developed have been implemented in the MBESS package in R so that they can be easily applied by researchers.     

Sample size determination for confidence intervals of interaction effects in moderated multiple regression with continuous predictor and moderator variables

Moderated multiple regression (MMR) has been widely employed to analyze the interaction or moderating effects in behavior and related disciplines of social science. Much of the methodological literature in the context of MMR concerns statistical power and sample size calculations of hypothesis tests for detecting moderator variables. Notably, interval estimation is a distinct and more informative alternative to significance testing for inference purposes. To facilitate the practice of reporting confidence intervals in MMR analyses, the present article presents two approaches to sample size determinations for precise interval estimation of interaction effects between continuous moderator and predictor variables. One approach provides the necessary sample size so that the designated interval for the least squares estimator of moderating effects attains the specified coverage probability. The other gives the sample size required to ensure, with a given tolerance probability, that a confidence interval of moderating effects with a desired confidence coefficient will be within a specified range. Numerical examples and simulation results are presented to illustrate the usefulness and advantages of the proposed methods that account for the embedded randomness and distributional characteristic of the moderator and predictor variables.     

Sample size planning for the standardized mean difference: accuracy in parameter estimation via narrow confidence intervals

Methods for planning sample size (SS) for the standardized mean difference so that a narrow confidence interval (CI) can be obtained via the accuracy in parameter estimation (AIPE) approach are developed. One method plans SS so that the expected width of the CI is sufficiently narrow. A modification adjusts the SS so that the obtained CI is no wider than desired with some specified degree of certainty (e.g., 99% certain the 95% CI will be no wider than omega). The rationale of the AIPE approach to SS planning is given, as is a discussion of the analytic approach to CI formation for the population standardized mean difference. Tables with values of necessary SS are provided. The freely available Methods for the Behavioral, Educational, and Social Sciences (K. Kelley, 2006a) R (R Development Core Team, 2006) software package easily implements the methods discussed.     

Sample size planning for composite reliability coefficients: accuracy in parameter estimation via narrow confidence intervals

Composite measures play an important role in psychology and related disciplines. Composite measures almost always have error. Correspondingly, it is important to understand the reliability of the scores from any particular composite measure. However, the point estimates of the reliability of composite measures are fallible and thus all such point estimates should be accompanied by a confidence interval. When confidence intervals are wide, there is much uncertainty in the population value of the reliability coefficient. Given the importance of reporting confidence intervals for estimates of reliability, coupled with the undesirability of wide confidence intervals, we develop methods that allow researchers to plan sample size in order to obtain narrow confidence intervals for population reliability coefficients. We first discuss composite reliability coefficients and then provide a discussion on confidence interval formation for the corresponding population value. Using the accuracy in parameter estimation approach, we develop two methods to obtain accurate estimates of reliability by planning sample size. The first method provides a way to plan sample size so that the expected confidence interval width for the population reliability coefficient is sufficiently narrow. The second method ensures that the confidence interval width will be sufficiently narrow with some desired degree of assurance (e.g., 99% assurance that the 95% confidence interval for the population reliability coefficient will be less than W units wide). The effectiveness of our methods was verified with Monte Carlo simulation studies. We demonstrate how to easily implement the methods with easy-to-use and freely available software.     

Sample size planning for the coefficient of variation from the accuracy in parameter estimation approach

The accuracy in parameter estimation approach to sample size planning is developed for the coefficient of variation, where the goal of the method is to obtain an accurate parameter estimate by achieving a sufficiently narrow confidence interval. The first method allows researchers to plan sample size so that the expected width of the confidence interval for the population coefficient of variation is sufficiently narrow. A modification allows a desired degree of assurance to be incorporated into the method, so that the obtained confidence interval will be sufficiently narrow with some specified probability (e.g., 85% assurance that the 95 confidence interval width will be no wider than to units). Tables of necessary sample size are provided for a variety of scenarios that may help researchers planning a study where the coefficient of variation is of interest plan an appropriate sample size in order to have a sufficiently narrow confidence interval, optionally with somespecified assurance of the confidence interval being sufficiently narrow. Freely available computer routines have been developed that allow researchers to easily implement all of the methods discussed in the article.     

Application of Sequential Interval Estimation to Adaptive Mastery Testing

In this paper, we apply sequential one-sided confidence interval estimation procedures with β-protection to adaptive mastery testing. The procedures of fixed-width and fixed proportional accuracy confidence interval estimation can be viewed as extensions of one-sided confidence interval procedures. It can be shown that the adaptive mastery testing procedure based on a one-sided confidence interval with β-protection is more efficient in terms of test length than a testing procedure based on a two-sided/fixed-width confidence interval. Some simulation studies applying the one-sided confidence interval procedure and its extensions mentioned above to adaptive mastery testing are conducted. For the purpose of comparison, we also have a numerical study of adaptive mastery testing based on Wald's sequential probability ratio test. The comparison of their performances is based on the correct classification probability, averages of test length, as well as the width of the “indifference regions.” From these empirical results, we found that applying the one-sided confidence interval procedure to adaptive mastery testing is very promising.     

Confidence intervals for the overall effect size in random-effects meta-analysis

One of the main objectives in meta-analysis is to estimate the overall effect size by calculating a confidence interval (CI). The usual procedure consists of assuming a standard normal distribution and a sampling variance defined as the inverse of the sum of the estimated weights of the effect sizes. But this procedure does not take into account the uncertainty due to the fact that the heterogeneity variance (tau2) and the within-study variances have to be estimated, leading to CIs that are too narrow with the consequence that the actual coverage probability is smaller than the nominal confidence level. In this article, the performances of 3 alternatives to the standard CI procedure are examined under a random-effects model and 8 different tau2 estimators to estimate the weights: the t distribution CI, the weighted variance CI (with an improved variance), and the quantile approximation method (recently proposed). The results of a Monte Carlo simulation showed that the weighted variance CI outperformed the other methods regardless of the tau2 estimator, the value of tau2, the number of studies, and the sample size.     

An alternative to Cohen's standardized mean difference effect size: a robust parameter and confidence interval in the two independent groups case

The authors argue that a robust version of Cohen's effect size constructed by replacing population means with 20% trimmed means and the population standard deviation with the square root of a 20% Winsorized variance is a better measure of population separation than is Cohen's effect size. The authors investigated coverage probability for confidence intervals for the new effect size measure. The confidence intervals were constructed by using the noncentral t distribution and the percentile bootstrap. Over the range of distributions and effect sizes investigated in the study, coverage probability was better for the percentile bootstrap confidence interval.     

Implications of statistical power for confidence intervals

The statistical power of a hypothesis test is closely related to the precision of the accompanying confidence interval. In the case of a z-test, the width of the confidence interval is a function of statistical power for the planned study. If minimum effect size is used in power analysis, the width of the confidence interval is the minimum effect size times a multiplicative factor φ. The index φ, or the precision-to-effect ratio, is a function of the computed statistical power. In the case of a t-test, statistical power affects the probability of achieving a certain width of confidence interval, which is equivalent to the probability of obtaining a certain value of φ. To consider estimate precision in conjunction with statistical power, we can choose a sample size to obtain a desired probability of achieving a short width conditional on the rejection of the null hypothesis.     

Accuracy in parameter estimation for ANCOVA and ANOVA contrasts: sample size planning via narrow confidence intervals

Contrasts of means are often of interest because they describe the effect size among multiple treatments. High-quality inference of population effect sizes can be achieved through narrow confidence intervals (CIs). Given the close relation between CI width and sample size, we propose two methods to plan the sample size for an ANCOVA or ANOVA study, so that a sufficiently narrow CI for the population (standardized or unstandardized) contrast of interest will be obtained. The standard method plans the sample size so that the expected CI width is sufficiently small. Since CI width is a random variable, the expected width being sufficiently small does not guarantee that the width obtained in a particular study will be sufficiently small. An extended procedure ensures with some specified, high degree of assurance (e.g., 90% of the time) that the CI observed in a particular study will be sufficiently narrow. We also discuss the rationale and usefulness of two different ways to standardize an ANCOVA contrast, and compare three types of standardized contrast in the ANCOVA/ANOVA context. All of the methods we propose have been implemented in the freely available MBESS package in R so that they can be easily applied by researchers.     

How meta-analysis increases statistical power

One of the most frequently cited reasons for conducting a meta-analysis is the increase in statistical power that it affords a reviewer. This article demonstrates that fixed-effects meta-analysis increases statistical power by reducing the standard error of the weighted average effect size (T.) and, in so doing, shrinks the confidence interval around T.. Small confidence intervals make it more likely for reviewers to detect nonzero population effects, thereby increasing statistical power. Smaller confidence intervals also represent increased precision of the estimated population effect size. Computational examples are provided for 3 effect-size indices: d (standardized mean difference), Pearson's r, and odds ratios. Random-effects meta-analyses also may show increased statistical power and a smaller standard error of the weighted average effect size. However, the authors demonstrate that increasing the number of studies in a random-effects meta-analysis does not always increase statistical power.     

Sample size planning for longitudinal models: accuracy in parameter estimation for polynomial change parameters

Longitudinal studies are necessary to examine individual change over time, with group status often being an important variable in explaining some individual differences in change. Although sample size planning for longitudinal studies has focused on statistical power, recent calls for effect sizes and their corresponding confidence intervals underscore the importance of obtaining sufficiently accurate estimates of group differences in change. We derived expressions that allow researchers to plan sample size to achieve the desired confidence interval width for group differences in change for orthogonal polynomial change parameters. The approaches developed provide the expected confidence interval width to be sufficiently narrow, with an extension that allows some specified degree of assurance (e.g., 99%) that the confidence interval will be sufficiently narrow. We make computer routines freely available, so that the methods developed can be used by researchers immediately.     

Beyond the F test: Effect size confidence intervals and tests of close fit in the analysis of variance and contrast analysis

This article presents confidence interval methods for improving on the standard F tests in the balanced, completely between-subjects, fixed-effects analysis of variance. Exact confidence intervals for omnibus effect size measures, such as or and the root-mean-square standardized effect, provide all the information in the traditional hypothesis test and more. They allow one to test simultaneously whether overall effects are (a) zero (the traditional test), (b) trivial (do not exceed some small value), or (c) nontrivial (definitely exceed some minimal level). For situations in which single-degree-of-freedom contrasts are of primary interest, exact confidence interval methods for contrast effect size measures such as the contrast correlation are also provided.     

Estimating the mean effect size in meta-analysis: Bias,precision, and mean squared error of different weighting methods

Although use of the standardized mean difference in meta-analysis is appealing for several reasons, there are some drawbacks. In this article, we focus on the following problem: that a precision-weighted mean of the observed effect sizes results in a biased estimate of the mean standardized mean difference. This bias is due to the fact that the weight given to an observed effect size depends on this observed effect size. In order to eliminate the bias, Hedges and Olkin (1985) proposed using the mean effect size estimate to calculate the weights. In the article, we propose a third alternative for calculating the weights: using empirical Bayes estimates of the effect sizes. In a simulation study, these three approaches are compared. The mean squared error (MSE) is used as the criterion by which to evaluate the resulting estimates of the mean effect size. For a meta-analytic dataset with a small number of studies, theMSE is usually smallest when the ordinary procedure is used, whereas for a moderate or large number of studies, the procedures yielding the best results are the empirical Bayes procedure and the procedure of Hedges and Olkin, respectively.