Advertisement

Mutual Information Technique in Assessing Crosstalk through a Random-Pairing Bootstrap Method

  • Xinguang (Jim) Chen
  • Ding-Geng Chen
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8393)

Abstract

Crosstalk plays a critical role in prevention research to promote purposeful behavior change through randomized controlled trials. However, two challenges prevent researchers from assessing crosstalk between subjects in the intervention and the control conditions that may contaminate an intervention trial. First, it is very hard if not impossible to identify who in the intervention group have talked with whom in the control group; therefore the crosstalk effect cannot be statistically evaluated. Second no method is readily available to quantify crosstalk even if we know who has talked with whom. To overcome the challenges, we devised the random-pairing bootstrap (RPB) method based on statistical principles and adapted the mutual information (MI) technique from the information sciences. The established RPB method provides a novel approach for researchers to identify participants in the intervention and the control groups who might have talked with each other; the MI itself is an analytical method capable of quantifying both linear and nonlinear relationships on a variable between two groups of subjects who might have experienced information exchange. An MI measure therefore provides evidence supporting the effect from crosstalk on a target variable with data generated through RPB. To establish the PRB-MI methodology, we first conducted a systematic test with simulated data. We then analyzed empirical data from a randomized controlled trial (n=1360) funded by the National Institute of Health. Analytical results with simulated data indicate that RBP-MI method can effectively detect a known crosstalk effect with different effect sizes. Analytical results with empirical data show that effects from within-group crosstalk are greater than those of between-group crosstalk, which is within our expectation. These findings suggest the validity and utility of the RBP-MI method in behavioral intervention research. Further research is needed to improve the method.

Keywords

Randomized pairing Crosstalk Mutual Information Informational Correlation Behavioral Intervention research Randomized controlled trials 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Stanton, B., Cole, M., Galbraith, J., Li, X., Pendleton, S., Cottrel, L., Marshall, S., Wu, Y., Kaljee, L.: A randomized trial of a parent intervention: Parents can make a difference in long-term adolescent risk behaviors, perceptions and knowledge. Archives of Pedi. Adol. Med. 158, 947–955 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kegeles, S.M., Hays, R.B., Coates, T.J.: The Mpowerment Project: A community-level HIV prevention intervention for young gay men. Am. J. of Public Health 86, 1129–1136 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Howe, A., Keogh-Brown, M., Miles, S., Bachmann, M.: Expert consensus on contamination in educational trials elicited by a Delphi exercise. Med. Edu. 41, 196–204 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Torgerson, D.J.: Contamination in trials: is cluster randomisation the answer? BMJ 322, 355–357 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fritz, K., McFarland, W., Wyrod, R., Chasakara, C., Makumbe, K., Chirowodza, A., et al.: Evaluation of a peer network-based sexual risk reduction intervention for men in beer halls in Zimbabwe: results from a randomized controlled trial. AIDS Behav. 15, 1732–1744 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gottman, J.M.: Detecting cyclicity in social interaction. Psychological Bulletin 86, 338–348 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Keirse, N.C., Hanssens, M.: Control of error in randomized clinical trials. European J. Obst. Gyn. Reprod. Bio. 92, 67–74 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lang, D.L., DiClemente, R.J., Hardin, J.W., Crosby, R.A., Salazar, L.F., Hertzberg, V.S.: Threats of cross-contamination on effects of a sexual risk reduction intervention: fact or fiction. Prev. Sci. 10, 270–275 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gottman, J.M.: Marital Interaction: Experimental Investigations. Academic Press, New York (1979)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gottman, J.M., Murray, J.D., Swanson, C.C., Tyson, R., Swanson, K.R.: The Mathematicals of Marriage: Dynamic Nonlinear Models. MIT Press, Cambridge (2002)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Guastello, S.J., Pincus, D., Gunderson, P.R.: Electrodermal arousal between participants in a conversation: nonlinear dynamics and linkage effects. Nonlinear Dynamics Psychol Life Sci. 10, 365–399 (2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hartkamp, N., Schmitz, N.: Structures of introject and therapist-patient interaction in a single case study of inpatient psychotherapy. Psychotherapy Research 9, 199–215 (1999)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nowak, A., Vallacher, P.R.: Dynamical Social Psychology. Guilford Press, New York (1998)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Shannon, C.E.: The mathematical theory of communication. Bell Syst. Techn. Journal 27, 379–423 (1948)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chen, X., Stanton, B., Gomez, P., Lunn, S., Deveaux, L., Brathwaite, N., et al.: Effects on condom use of an HIV prevention programme 36 months postintervention: a cluster randomized controlled trial among Bahamian youth. Int J. STD AIDS 21(9), 622–630 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chen, X., Lunn, S., Deveaux, L., Li, X., Brathwaite, N., Cottrell, L., et al.: A cluster randomized controlled trial of an adolescent HIV prevention program among Bahamian youth: effect at 12 months post-intervention. AIDS Behav. 13, 499–508 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Xinguang (Jim) Chen
    • 1
    • 2
  • Ding-Geng Chen
    • 3
  1. 1.University of Florida Department of EpidemiologyGainesvilleUSA
  2. 2.Wayne State University School of MedicineDetroitUSA
  3. 3.School of Nursing & Department of Biostatistics and Computational ScienceUniversity of Rochester Medical CenterRochesterUSA

Personalised recommendations