Replicate Design ≠ Higher-Order Cross­over [Design Issues]

posted by Relaxation  – Germany, 2023-03-20 09:56 (424 d 22:14 ago) – Posting: # 23506
Views: 2,763

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
23,029 posts in 4,834 threads, 1,641 registered users;
35 visitors (0 registered, 35 guests [including 8 identified bots]).
Forum time: 09:11 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

The most erroneous stories are those we think we know best–
and therefore never scrutinize or question.    Stephen Jay Gould

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