Advertisement

Journal of Statistical Theory and Practice

, Volume 9, Issue 3, pp 600–607 | Cite as

Establishing Practical Equivalence Between Three Treatments

Article

Abstract

Consider a one-way layout with three treatments with unknown means μ1, μ2, and μ3, and a common unknown variance σ2. The practical equivalence of the three treatments can be concluded if the range of the three means is small in comparison to their standard deviation σ. This implies that the range Δ of the three reciprocal coefficients of variation μi/σ, 1 ≤ i ≤ 3, is less than a specified amount. In this article, it is shown how to construct an upper confidence bound for Δ for possibly unbalanced data sets. Small values of this upper bound allow practical equivalence to be established in an efficient manner. Examples of the implementation of this procedure are provided, and comparisons are made with other approaches. R code to implement the procedure is available.

Keywords

Normal distribution One-way layout Equivalence Coefficient of variation Range Confidence interval Acceptance set Least favorable configuration 

AMS Subject Classification

62J10 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bofinger, E., A. J. Hayter, and W. Liu. 1993. The construction of upper confidence bounds on the range of several location parameters. J. Am. Stat. Assoc., 88(423), 906–911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Browne, R. H. 2010. The t-test p value and its relationship to the effect size and P (X > Y). Am. Statistician, 64(1), 30–33.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cohen, J. 1969. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York, NY: Academic Press.MATHGoogle Scholar
  4. Fleming, T. R. 2008. Current issues in non-inferiority trials. Stat. Med., 27, 317–332.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hayter, A. J., and W. Liu. 1990. The power function of the Studentized range test. Ann. Stat., 18(1), 465–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hayter, A. J., and W. Liu. 1992. Some minimax test procedures for comparing several normal means. In Multiple comparisons, selection, and applications in biometry, A festschrift in honor of Charles W. Dunnett, ed. by F. M. Hoppe, 137–148. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker.Google Scholar
  7. Hayter, A. J., J. Kim, and W. Liu. 2008. Critical point computations for one-sided and two-sided pairwise comparisons of three treatment means. Comput. Stat. Data Anal., 53, 463–470.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hayter, A. J. 2013. “Inferences on the difference between future observations for comparing two treatments. J. Appl. Stat., 40(4), 887–900.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hochberg, Y., and A. C. Tamhane. 1987. Multiple comparison procedures. New York, NY: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hsu, J. C. 1996. Multiple comparisons—Theory and methods. London, UK: Chapman & Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Juneau, P. 2003. Using SAS to perform a single-stage multiple comparison procedure for all pair-wise comparisons in a one-way layout with unequal variances. Proceedings of the PharmaSUG 2003 Annual Conference, Miami, FL, paper 15, 485.Google Scholar
  12. Kwong, K. S., S. H. Cheung, A. J. Hayter, and M. Wen. 2012. Extension of three-arm non-inferiority studies to trials with multiple new treatments. Stat. Med., 31, 2833–2843.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Neter, J., M. H. Kutner, C. Nachtsheim, and W. Wasserman 1996. Applied linear statistical models, 3rd ed., Homewood, IL: Irwin.Google Scholar
  14. Wellek, S. 2010. Testing statistical hypotheses of equivalence and noninferiority, Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Grace Scientific Publishing 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of ManagementFuzhou UniversityFuzhouChina
  2. 2.Department of Business Information and AnalyticsUniversity of DenverDenverUSA
  3. 3.S3RI and School of MathematicsUniversity of SouthamptonSouthamptonUK

Personalised recommendations