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

posted by ElMaestro  – Belgium?, 2016-12-30 18:50 (1319 d 03:59 ago) – Posting: # 16915
Views: 4,295

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
20,996 posts in 4,377 threads, 1,460 registered users;
online 18 (0 registered, 18 guests [including 11 identified bots]).
Forum time: Monday 23:49 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

[Those] who have an excessive faith in their theories or in their
ideas are not only poorly disposed to make discoveries, but they
also make very poor observations.    Claude Bernard

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