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.     

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.     

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 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.     

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.     

Large-sample confidence intervals for validity and reliability coefficients

Large-sample confidence intervals (CI) for reliability, validity, and unattenuated validity are presented. The CI for unattenuated validity is based on the Bonferroni inequality, which relies on one CI for test-retest reliability and one for validity. Covered are four reliability-validity situations: (a) both estimates were from random samples; (b) reliability was from a random sample but validity was from a selected sample; (c) validity was from a random sample but reliability was from a selected sample; and (d) both estimates were from selected samples. All CIs were evaluated by using a simulation. CIs on reliability, validity, or unattenuated validity are accurate as long as selection ratio is at least 20% and selected sample size is 100 or larger. When selection ratio is less than 20%, estimators tend to underestimate their parameters.     

Approximate confidence intervals for a robust scale parameter

A recent paper by Wainer and Thissen has renewed the interest in Gini's mean difference,G, by pointing out its robust characteristics. This note presents distribution-free asymptotic confidence intervals for its population value,γ, in the one sample case and for the difference Δ=(γ ₁?γ ₂) in the two sample situations. Both procedures are based on a technique of jackknifingU-statistics developed by Arvesen.     

On accuracy in reliability estimation

This study in parametric test theory deals with the statistics of reliability estimation when scores on two parts of a test follow a binormal distribution with equal (Case 1) or unequal (Case 2) expectations. In each case biased maximum-likelihood estimators of reliability are obtained and converted into unbiased estimators. Sampling distributions are derived. Second moments are obtained and utilized in calculating mean square errors of estimation as a measure of accuracy. A rank order of four estimators is established. There is a uniformly best estimator. Tables of absolute and relative accuracies are provided for various reliability parameters and sample sizes.     

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.     

Asymptotic confidence intervals for the Pearson correlation via skewness and kurtosis

When bivariate normality is violated, the default confidence interval of the Pearson correlation can be inaccurate. Two new methods were developed based on the asymptotic sampling distribution of Fisher's z′ under the general case where bivariate normality need not be assumed. In Monte Carlo simulations, the most successful of these methods relied on the (Vale & Maurelli, 1983, Psychometrika, 48, 465) family to approximate a distribution via the marginal skewness and kurtosis of the sample data. In Simulation 1, this method provided more accurate confidence intervals of the correlation in non-normal data, at least as compared to no adjustment of the Fisher z′ interval, or to adjustment via the sample joint moments. In Simulation 2, this approximate distribution method performed favourably relative to common non-parametric bootstrap methods, but its performance was mixed relative to an observed imposed bootstrap and two other robust methods (PM1 and HC4). No method was completely satisfactory. An advantage of the approximate distribution method, though, is that it can be implemented even without access to raw data if sample skewness and kurtosis are reported, making the method particularly useful for meta-analysis. Supporting information includes R code.     

Exact and best confidence intervals for the ability parameter of the Rasch model

A commonly used method to evaluate the accuracy of a measurement is to provide a confidence interval that contains the parameter of interest with a given high probability. Smallest exact confidence intervals for the ability parameter of the Rasch model are derived and compared to the traditional, asymptotically valid intervals based on the Fisher information. Tables of the exact confidence intervals, termed Clopper-Pearson intervals, can be routinely drawn up by applying a computer program designed by and obtainable from the author. These tables are particularly useful for tests of only moderate lengths where the asymptotic method does not provide valid confidence intervals.     

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.     

Sample size bias in the estimation of means

The present research concerns the hypothesis that intuitive estimates of the arithmetic mean of a sample of numbers tend to increase as a function of the sample size; that is, they reflect a systematic sample size bias. A similar bias has been observed when people judge the average member of a group of people on an inferred quantity (e.g., a disease risk; see Price, 2001; Price, Smith, & Lench, 2006). Until now, however, it has been unclear whether it would be observed when the stimuli were numbers, in which case the quantity need not be inferred, and “average” can be precisely defined as the arithmetic mean. In two experiments, participants estimated the arithmetic mean of 12 samples of numbers. In the first experiment, samples of from 5 to 20 numbers were presented simultaneously and participants quickly estimated their mean. In the second experiment, the numbers in each sample were presented sequentially. The results of both experiments confirmed the existence of a systematic sample size bias.     

RMediation: An R package for mediation analysis confidence intervals

This article describes the RMediation package,which offers various methods for building confidence intervals (CIs) for mediated effects. The mediated effect is the product of two regression coefficients. The distribution-of-the-product method has the best statistical performance of existing methods for building CIs for the mediated effect. RMediation produces CIs using methods based on the distribution of product, Monte Carlo simulations, and an asymptotic normal distribution. Furthermore, RMediation generates percentiles, quantiles, and the plot of the distribution and CI for the mediated effect. An existing program, called PRODCLIN, published in Behavior Research Methods, has been widely cited and used by researchers to build accurate CIs. PRODCLIN has several limitations: The program is somewhat cumbersome to access and yields no result for several cases. RMediation described herein is based on the widely available R software, includes several capabilities not available in PRODCLIN, and provides accurate results that PRODCLIN could not.     

Estimating confidence intervals for eigenvalues in exploratory factor analysis

Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) has become a common procedure in educational and psychological research. In the course of performing an EFA, researchers often base the decision of how many factors to retain on the eigenvalues for the factors. However, many researchers do not realize that eigenvalues, like all sample statistics, are subject to sampling error, which means that confidence intervals (CIs) can be estimated for each eigenvalue. In the present article, we demonstrate two methods of estimating CIs for eigenvalues: one based on the mathematical properties of the central limit theorem, and the other based on bootstrapping. References to appropriate SAS and SPSS syntax are included. Supplemental materials for this article may be downloaded from http://brm.psychonomic-journals.org/content/supplemental.     

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.     

Statistical inference for a linear function of medians: confidence intervals,hypothesis testing,and sample size requirements

When the distribution of the response variable is skewed, the population median may be a more meaningful measure of centrality than the population mean, and when the population distribution of the response variable has heavy tails, the sample median may be a more efficient estimator of centrality than the sample mean. The authors propose a confidence interval for a general linear function of population medians. Linear functions have many important special cases including pairwise comparisons, main effects, interaction effects, simple main effects, curvature, and slope. The confidence interval can be used to test 2-sided directional hypotheses and finite interval hypotheses. Sample size formulas are given for both interval estimation and hypothesis testing problems.     

BootES: An R package for bootstrap confidence intervals on effect sizes

Bootstrap Effect Sizes (bootES; Gerlanc & Kirby, 2012) is a free, open-source software package for R (R Development Core Team, 2012), which is a language and environment for statistical computing. BootES computes both unstandardized and standardized effect sizes (such as Cohen’s d, Hedges’s g, and Pearson’s r) and makes easily available for the first time the computation of their bootstrap confidence intervals (CIs). In this article, we illustrate how to use bootES to find effect sizes for contrasts in between-subjects, within-subjects, and mixed factorial designs and to find bootstrap CIs for correlations and differences between correlations. An appendix gives a brief introduction to R that will allow readers to use bootES without having prior knowledge of R.