Replicate Design ≠ Higher-Order Cross­over [Design Issues]

posted by Relaxation  – Germany, 2023-03-20 09:56 (481 d 08:06 ago) – Posting: # 23506
Views: 3,166

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
23,099 posts in 4,857 threads, 1,647 registered users;
99 visitors (0 registered, 99 guests [including 8 identified bots]).
Forum time: 19:02 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Imagine if every Thursday your shoes exploded
if you tied them the usual way.
This happens to us all the time with computers,
and nobody thinks of complaining.    Jef Raskin

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