Replicate Design ≠ Higher-Order Cross­over [Design Issues]

posted by Relaxation  – Germany, 2023-03-20 09:56 (74 d 00:02 ago) – Posting: # 23506
Views: 1,216

Hi everybody and sorry for posting this additional question late.
But I cannot get to a clear answer by myself.

Helmut, you stated

❝ What you must not use is the Latin Square ABCD|BCDA|CDAB|DABC. Only from a Williams’ design you can extract balanced pairwise comparisons

I somehow fail to see why the extracted "pairs" are not considered balanced.
They are not balanced for carry-over (which was always the most important reason for Williams), but aren't they for period and sequence?
Is this what you mean here?

I have no idea how to make it fancy, so I will try an ASCII-style
Sequence | Treatments | IBD for A vs B 
1        | ABCD       | AB..
2        | DABC       | .AB.
3        | CDAB       | ..AB
4        | BCDA       | B..A

So A is present once in each sequence and period and the same for B.

Best regards,

Complete thread:

UA Flag
 Admin contact
22,616 posts in 4,740 threads, 1,611 registered users;
18 visitors (0 registered, 18 guests [including 13 identified bots]).
Forum time: 10:59 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Nerds don’t just happen to dress informally.
They do it too consistently.
Consciously or not, they dress informally
as a prophylactic measure against stupidity.    Paul Graham

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