Strange questions… [Power / Sample Size]

posted by Jamesmartinn – 2011-11-27 15:43 (5328 d 02:18 ago) – Posting: # 7736
Views: 11,004

Hi HS,

Thank you for taking the time to reply! I was given this take home test on Wed of last week and asked to submit my solutions Friday. As I stated earlier, I could only solve one of the questions and emailed them back saying I was unsuccessful in solving the remaining ones. They replied asking me to take the weekend to try once more - the interview went very well and they seemed to like me. I have to submit something tomorrow.

I'm really starting to think that these questions were vague on purpose? I'm wondering if they want me to respond back by saying additional information is required (for example, alpha = 0.05, or 0.01? for these questions?) Then again I'm not sure, I'm new to BE/BA and it seems like lots of conventions/standards (FDA, etc) already exist, so maybe they expect I should know. It's a real toss up given I'm a total novice to this area!

In regards to the CV study, I'm going to try to locate the Chow and Liu source, it seems my best bet. For the last question, as you stated, I have no idea what the goal of the study was. What I posted in green text was literally what I got. Given that limited information (2 treatments, 1 Placebo), what would be the most likely purpose (superiority, inferiority, equivalence) ? I'm guessing which ever it is, it's in reference to the placebo group.

I'm going to do a few scenarios for that question. However, the whole '20% difference between treatments' as an effect size really throws me off. Could you demonstrate how this is taken into account in calculating 1 or 2 different scenarios? Let's pretend I'm comparing (i) treatment a vs placebo , (ii) treatment b vs placebo for either inferiority/superiority

Thank you so much, you are all very kind in being understanding to my situation. Best,

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,656 posts in 4,994 threads, 1,570 registered users;
277 visitors (0 registered, 277 guests [including 13 identified bots]).
Forum time: 19:02 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Most scientists today are devoid of ideas, full of fear, intent on
producing some paltry result so that they can add to the flood
of inane papers that now constitutes “scientific progress”
in many areas.    Paul Feyerabend

The Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum is hosted by
BEBAC Ing. Helmut Schütz
HTML5