“Type 1” slightly higher power than “Type 2” for the same adj. α [Two-Stage / GS Designs]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2017-02-18 10:51  – Posting: # 17081
Views: 10,352

Hi BE-proff,

I agree with ElMaestro.

» 2) Why Method C is considered "better" for sponsors than Method B?

Unfortunately there is an „inflation” of letters denoting methods.
Therefore, I suggested* to use “Type 1” (B, E, …) and “Type 2” (C, D, C/D, F, …) instead.

“Type 1”


“Type 2”


In “Type 2” TSDs the conventional (unadjusted) α 0.05 may be used in the first stage (dependent on interim power). Hence, under certain conditions you have a decent chance to stop already in the first stage with no sample size penalty (due to the mandatory adjusted α in “Type 1” TSDs).

Potvin et al. recommended Method C over B due to its higher power. Examples (power by the noncentral t-approximation):

n1 CV (%)   B      C   
12   10   0.97697 0.98858
24   20   0.88046 0.90882
36   30   0.83704 0.84676
48   40   0.82901 0.82838
60   50   0.82477 0.82405

Helmut Schütz

The quality of responses received is directly proportional to the quality of the question asked. 🚮
Science Quotes

Complete thread:

 Admin contact
20,237 posts in 4,258 threads, 1,395 registered users;
online 3 (0 registered, 3 guests [including 3 identified bots]).
Forum time (Europe/Vienna): 01:01 UTC

There are no routine statistical questions,
only questionable statistical routines.    David R. Cox

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