Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Trials 1/2022

Open Access 01-12-2022 | Methodology

Analysis of multiple-period group randomized trials: random coefficients model or repeated measures ANOVA?

Authors: Jonathan C. Moyer, Patrick J. Heagerty, David M. Murray

Published in: Trials | Issue 1/2022

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Multiple-period parallel group randomized trials (GRTs) analyzed with linear mixed models can represent time in mean models as continuous or categorical. If time is continuous, random effects are traditionally group- and member-level deviations from condition-specific slopes and intercepts and are referred to as random coefficients (RC) analytic models. If time is categorical, random effects are traditionally group- and member-level deviations from time-specific condition means and are referred to as repeated measures ANOVA (RM-ANOVA) analytic models. Longstanding guidance recommends the use of RC over RM-ANOVA for parallel GRTs with more than two periods because RC exhibited nominal type I error rates for both time parameterizations while RM-ANOVA exhibited inflated type I error rates when applied to data generated using the RC model. However, this recommendation was developed assuming a variance components covariance matrix for the RM-ANOVA, using only cross-sectional data, and explicitly modeling time × group variation. Left unanswered were how well RM-ANOVA with an unstructured covariance would perform on data generated according to the RC mechanism, if similar patterns would be observed in cohort data, and the impact of not modeling time × group variation if such variation was present in the data-generating model.

Methods

Continuous outcomes for cohort and cross-sectional parallel GRT data were simulated according to RM-ANOVA and RC mechanisms at five total time periods. All simulations assumed time × group variation. We varied the number of groups, group size, and intra-cluster correlation. Analytic models using RC, RM-ANOVA, RM-ANOVA with unstructured covariance, and a Saturated random effects structure were applied to the data. All analytic models specified time × group random effects. The analytic models were then reapplied without specifying random effects for time × group.

Results

Results indicated the RC and saturated analytic models maintained the nominal type I error rate in all data sets, RM-ANOVA with an unstructured covariance did not avoid type I error rate inflation when applied to cohort RC data, and analytic models omitting time-varying group random effects when such variation exists in the data were prone to substantial type I error inflation unless the residual error variance is high relative to the time × group variance.

Conclusion

The time × group RC and saturated analytic models are recommended as the default for multiple period parallel GRTs.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Murray DM. Design and analysis of group-randomized trials. New York: Oxford University Press; 1998. Murray DM. Design and analysis of group-randomized trials. New York: Oxford University Press; 1998.
2.
go back to reference Donner A, Klar N. Design and analysis of cluster randomization trials in health research. London: Arnold; 2000. Donner A, Klar N. Design and analysis of cluster randomization trials in health research. London: Arnold; 2000.
3.
go back to reference Eldridge S, Kerry S. A practical guide to cluster randomised trials in health services research. London: Arnold; 2012. Eldridge S, Kerry S. A practical guide to cluster randomised trials in health services research. London: Arnold; 2012.
4.
go back to reference Campbell MJ, Walters SJ. How to design, analyse and report cluster randomised trials in medicine and health related research. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.; 2014. Campbell MJ, Walters SJ. How to design, analyse and report cluster randomised trials in medicine and health related research. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.; 2014.
5.
go back to reference Hayes RJ, Moulton LH. Cluster randomised trials. 2nd ed. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2017. Hayes RJ, Moulton LH. Cluster randomised trials. 2nd ed. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2017.
6.
go back to reference Hemming K, Kasza J, Hooper R, Forbes A, Taljaard M. A tutorial on sample size calculation for multiple-period cluster randomized parallel, cross-over and stepped-wedge trials using the Shiny CRT Calculator. Int J Epidemiol. 2020;49(3):979–95.CrossRef Hemming K, Kasza J, Hooper R, Forbes A, Taljaard M. A tutorial on sample size calculation for multiple-period cluster randomized parallel, cross-over and stepped-wedge trials using the Shiny CRT Calculator. Int J Epidemiol. 2020;49(3):979–95.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Hemming K, Taljaard M, Weijer C, Forbes AB. Use of multiple period, cluster randomised, crossover trial designs for comparative effectiveness research. BMJ. 2020;371: m3800.CrossRef Hemming K, Taljaard M, Weijer C, Forbes AB. Use of multiple period, cluster randomised, crossover trial designs for comparative effectiveness research. BMJ. 2020;371: m3800.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Grantham KL, Kasza J, Heritier S, Hemming K, Litton E, Forbes AB. How many times should a cluster randomized crossover trial cross over? Stat Med. 2019;38(25):5021–33.CrossRef Grantham KL, Kasza J, Heritier S, Hemming K, Litton E, Forbes AB. How many times should a cluster randomized crossover trial cross over? Stat Med. 2019;38(25):5021–33.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Hemming K, Taljaard M. Reflection on modern methods: when is a stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial a good study design choice? Int J Epidemiol. 2020;49(3):1043–52.CrossRef Hemming K, Taljaard M. Reflection on modern methods: when is a stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial a good study design choice? Int J Epidemiol. 2020;49(3):1043–52.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Feldman HA, McKinlay SM. Cohort versus cross-sectional design in large field trials: precision, sample size, and a unifying model. Stat Med. 1994;13(1):61–78.CrossRef Feldman HA, McKinlay SM. Cohort versus cross-sectional design in large field trials: precision, sample size, and a unifying model. Stat Med. 1994;13(1):61–78.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Kasza J, Hooper R, Copas A, Forbes AB. Sample size and power calculations for open cohort longitudinal cluster randomized trials. Stat Med. 2020;39(13):1871–83. Kasza J, Hooper R, Copas A, Forbes AB. Sample size and power calculations for open cohort longitudinal cluster randomized trials. Stat Med. 2020;39(13):1871–83.
12.
go back to reference Luepker RV, Murray DM, Jacobs JDR, Mittelmark MB, Bracht N, Carlaw R, et al. Community education for cardiovascular disease prevention: risk factor changes in the Minnesota Heart Health Program. Am J Public Health. 1994;84(9):1383–93.CrossRef Luepker RV, Murray DM, Jacobs JDR, Mittelmark MB, Bracht N, Carlaw R, et al. Community education for cardiovascular disease prevention: risk factor changes in the Minnesota Heart Health Program. Am J Public Health. 1994;84(9):1383–93.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Lytle LA, Murray DM, Perry CL, Story M, Birnbaum AS, Kubik MY, et al. School-based approaches to affect adolescents’ diets: results from the TEENS study. Health Educ Behav. 2004;31(2):270–87.CrossRef Lytle LA, Murray DM, Perry CL, Story M, Birnbaum AS, Kubik MY, et al. School-based approaches to affect adolescents’ diets: results from the TEENS study. Health Educ Behav. 2004;31(2):270–87.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Murray DM, Pals SL, George SM, Kuzmichev A, Lai GY, Lee JA, et al. Design and analysis of group-randomized trials in cancer: a review of current practices. Prev Med. 2018;111:241–7. Murray DM, Pals SL, George SM, Kuzmichev A, Lai GY, Lee JA, et al. Design and analysis of group-randomized trials in cancer: a review of current practices. Prev Med. 2018;111:241–7.
15.
go back to reference Hooper R, Teerenstra S, de Hoop E, Eldridge S. Sample size calculation for stepped wedge and other longitudinal cluster randomised trials. Stat Med. 2016;35(26):4718–28.CrossRef Hooper R, Teerenstra S, de Hoop E, Eldridge S. Sample size calculation for stepped wedge and other longitudinal cluster randomised trials. Stat Med. 2016;35(26):4718–28.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Murray DM, Blitstein JL, Hannan PJ, Baker WL, Lytle LA. Sizing a trial to alter the trajectory of health behaviours: methods, parameter estimates, and their application. Stat Med. 2007;26(11):2297–316.CrossRef Murray DM, Blitstein JL, Hannan PJ, Baker WL, Lytle LA. Sizing a trial to alter the trajectory of health behaviours: methods, parameter estimates, and their application. Stat Med. 2007;26(11):2297–316.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Murray DM, Hannan PJ, Wolfinger RD, Baker WL, Dwyer JH. Analysis of data from group-randomized trials with repeat observations on the same groups. Stat Med. 1998;17(14):1581–600.CrossRef Murray DM, Hannan PJ, Wolfinger RD, Baker WL, Dwyer JH. Analysis of data from group-randomized trials with repeat observations on the same groups. Stat Med. 1998;17(14):1581–600.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Kasza J, Forbes AB. Inference for the treatment effect in multiple-period cluster randomised trials when random effect correlation structure is misspecified. Stat Methods Med Res. 2019;28(10–11):3112–22.CrossRef Kasza J, Forbes AB. Inference for the treatment effect in multiple-period cluster randomised trials when random effect correlation structure is misspecified. Stat Methods Med Res. 2019;28(10–11):3112–22.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Heagerty PJ, Kurland BF. Misspecified maximum likelihood estimates and generalised linear mixed models. Biometrika. 2001;88(4):973–85.CrossRef Heagerty PJ, Kurland BF. Misspecified maximum likelihood estimates and generalised linear mixed models. Biometrika. 2001;88(4):973–85.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Bell A, Fairbrother M, Jones K. Fixed and random effects models: making an informed choice. Qual Quant. 2019;53:1051–74.CrossRef Bell A, Fairbrother M, Jones K. Fixed and random effects models: making an informed choice. Qual Quant. 2019;53:1051–74.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Bell ML, Rabe BA. The mixed model for repeated measures for cluster randomized trials: a simulation study investigating bias and type I error with missing continuous data. Trials. 2020;21(1):148.CrossRef Bell ML, Rabe BA. The mixed model for repeated measures for cluster randomized trials: a simulation study investigating bias and type I error with missing continuous data. Trials. 2020;21(1):148.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Kasza J, Hemming K, Hooper R, Matthews J, Forbes AB. Impact of non-uniform correlation structure on sample size and power in multiple-period cluster randomised trials. Stat Methods Med Res. 2019;28(3):703–16.CrossRef Kasza J, Hemming K, Hooper R, Matthews J, Forbes AB. Impact of non-uniform correlation structure on sample size and power in multiple-period cluster randomised trials. Stat Methods Med Res. 2019;28(3):703–16.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Li F, Hughes JP, Hemming K, Taljaard M, Melnick ER, Heagerty PJ. Mixed-effects models for the design and analysis of stepped wedge cluster randomized trials: an overview. Stat Methods Med Res. 2021;30(2):612–39. Li F, Hughes JP, Hemming K, Taljaard M, Melnick ER, Heagerty PJ. Mixed-effects models for the design and analysis of stepped wedge cluster randomized trials: an overview. Stat Methods Med Res. 2021;30(2):612–39.
24.
go back to reference Rutterford C, Copas A, Eldridge S. Methods for sample size determination in cluster randomized trials. Int J Epidemiol. 2015;44(3):1051–67.CrossRef Rutterford C, Copas A, Eldridge S. Methods for sample size determination in cluster randomized trials. Int J Epidemiol. 2015;44(3):1051–67.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Teerenstra S, Eldridge S, Graff M, de Hoop E, Borm GF. A simple sample size formula for analysis of covariance in cluster randomized trials. Stat Med. 2012;31(20):2169–78.CrossRef Teerenstra S, Eldridge S, Graff M, de Hoop E, Borm GF. A simple sample size formula for analysis of covariance in cluster randomized trials. Stat Med. 2012;31(20):2169–78.CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Fitzmaurice G, Laird N, Ware J. Applied longitudinal analysis. 2nd ed. Hoboken:Wiley; 2011. Fitzmaurice G, Laird N, Ware J. Applied longitudinal analysis. 2nd ed. Hoboken:Wiley; 2011.
27.
go back to reference Murray DM, Hannan PJ, Baker WL. A Monte Carlo study of alternative responses to intraclass correlation in community trials. Is it ever possible to avoid Cornfield’s penalties? Eval Rev. 1996;20(3):313–37.CrossRef Murray DM, Hannan PJ, Baker WL. A Monte Carlo study of alternative responses to intraclass correlation in community trials. Is it ever possible to avoid Cornfield’s penalties? Eval Rev. 1996;20(3):313–37.CrossRef
28.
go back to reference Kenward MG, Roger JH. Small sample inference for fixed effects from restricted maximum likelihood. Biometrics. 1997;53(3):983–97.CrossRef Kenward MG, Roger JH. Small sample inference for fixed effects from restricted maximum likelihood. Biometrics. 1997;53(3):983–97.CrossRef
29.
go back to reference Kenward MG, Roger JH. An improved approximation to the precision of fixed effects from restricted maximum likelihood. Comput Stat Data Anal. 2009;53(7):2583–95. Kenward MG, Roger JH. An improved approximation to the precision of fixed effects from restricted maximum likelihood. Comput Stat Data Anal. 2009;53(7):2583–95.
31.
go back to reference Arnau J, Bono R, Vallejo G. Analyzing small samples of repeated measures data with the mixed-model adjusted F test. Commun Stat - Simul Comput. 2009;38(5):1083–103.CrossRef Arnau J, Bono R, Vallejo G. Analyzing small samples of repeated measures data with the mixed-model adjusted F test. Commun Stat - Simul Comput. 2009;38(5):1083–103.CrossRef
32.
34.
go back to reference Taljaard M, Teerenstra S, Ivers NM, Fergusson DA. Substantial risks associated with few clusters in cluster randomized and stepped wedge designs. Clin Trials. 2016;13(4):459–63.CrossRef Taljaard M, Teerenstra S, Ivers NM, Fergusson DA. Substantial risks associated with few clusters in cluster randomized and stepped wedge designs. Clin Trials. 2016;13(4):459–63.CrossRef
35.
go back to reference Barr DJ, Levy R, Scheepers C, Tily HJ. Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. J Mem Lang. 2013;68(3):255–78.CrossRef Barr DJ, Levy R, Scheepers C, Tily HJ. Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. J Mem Lang. 2013;68(3):255–78.CrossRef
36.
go back to reference Kenny A, Voldal EC, Xia F, Heagerty PJ, Hughes JP. Analysis of stepped wedge cluster randomized trials in the presence of a time-varying treatment effect. Stat Med. 2022;41(22):4311–39.CrossRef Kenny A, Voldal EC, Xia F, Heagerty PJ, Hughes JP. Analysis of stepped wedge cluster randomized trials in the presence of a time-varying treatment effect. Stat Med. 2022;41(22):4311–39.CrossRef
37.
go back to reference Gurka MJ, Edwards LJ, Muller KE. Avoiding bias in mixed model inference for fixed effects. Stat Med. 2011;30(22):2696–707.CrossRef Gurka MJ, Edwards LJ, Muller KE. Avoiding bias in mixed model inference for fixed effects. Stat Med. 2011;30(22):2696–707.CrossRef
38.
go back to reference Kreidler SM, Ringham BM, Muller KE, Glueck DH. A power approximation for the Kenward and Roger Wald test in the linear mixed model. PLoS ONE. 2021;16(7): e0254811.CrossRef Kreidler SM, Ringham BM, Muller KE, Glueck DH. A power approximation for the Kenward and Roger Wald test in the linear mixed model. PLoS ONE. 2021;16(7): e0254811.CrossRef
39.
go back to reference Pals SL, Murray DM, Alfano CM, Shadish WR, Hannan PJ, Baker WL. Individually randomized group treatment trials: a critical appraisal of frequently used design and analytic approaches. Am J Public Health. 2008;98(8):1418–24. Pals SL, Murray DM, Alfano CM, Shadish WR, Hannan PJ, Baker WL. Individually randomized group treatment trials: a critical appraisal of frequently used design and analytic approaches. Am J Public Health. 2008;98(8):1418–24.
40.
go back to reference Li F. Design and analysis considerations for cohort stepped wedge cluster randomized trials with a decay correlation structure. Stat Med. 2020;39(4):438–55.CrossRef Li F. Design and analysis considerations for cohort stepped wedge cluster randomized trials with a decay correlation structure. Stat Med. 2020;39(4):438–55.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Analysis of multiple-period group randomized trials: random coefficients model or repeated measures ANOVA?
Authors
Jonathan C. Moyer
Patrick J. Heagerty
David M. Murray
Publication date
01-12-2022
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Trials / Issue 1/2022
Electronic ISSN: 1745-6215
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-022-06917-2

Other articles of this Issue 1/2022

Trials 1/2022 Go to the issue