Impact of minimum stage 2 sample size on the TIE: example [Two-Stage / GS Designs]

posted by ElMaestro  – Belgium?, 2016-12-30 18:50 (1318 d 00:09 ago) – Posting: # 16915
Views: 4,292

Ah, got it, thanks Helmut,

» (...a bunch of blah blah blah...)
» That’s pure reasoning (wetware). :smoke:


I think you are saying that:That is correct. I don't think it is something I personally can deduce logically by looking at the algo or equations, but it is a correct statement, I believe, based on simulations.
It is tempting to say power increases with sample size, and since type I error is a kind of power, this is the logic behind the observation. I think the issue is somewhat more complex than just that. These two-stage thingies are funny objects that defy all kinds of logic.

Does it change anything though?? I mean you and I both argued in the past that universally functional alpha's do not exist, so whenever someone makes a smart/clever/sophisticated/dumb/intelligent/braindead amendment to Potvin B or C etc, then simulations should always be undertaken to make sure the type I error is not compromised.

I could be wrong, but...

Best regards,
ElMaestro

"Pass or fail" (D. Potvin et al., 2008)

Complete thread:

Activity
 Admin contact
20,988 posts in 4,375 threads, 1,460 registered users;
online 11 (0 registered, 11 guests [including 7 identified bots]).
Forum time: Sunday 20:00 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

The interpretation of facts in a certain way
stimulates other scientists’ thoughts.    Róbert Bárány

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