Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2008

Open Access 01-12-2008 | Research article

Comparison of two dependent within subject coefficients of variation to evaluate the reproducibility of measurement devices

Authors: Mohamed M Shoukri, Dilek Colak, Namik Kaya, Allan Donner

Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology | Issue 1/2008

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The within-subject coefficient of variation and intra-class correlation coefficient are commonly used to assess the reliability or reproducibility of interval-scale measurements. Comparison of reproducibility or reliability of measurement devices or methods on the same set of subjects comes down to comparison of dependent reliability or reproducibility parameters.

Methods

In this paper, we develop several procedures for testing the equality of two dependent within-subject coefficients of variation computed from the same sample of subjects, which is, to the best of our knowledge, has not yet been dealt with in the statistical literature. The Wald test, the likelihood ratio, and the score tests are developed. A simple regression procedure based on results due to Pitman and Morgan is constructed. Furthermore we evaluate the statistical properties of these methods via extensive Monte Carlo simulations. The methodologies are illustrated on two data sets; the first are the microarray gene expressions measured by two plat- forms; the Affymetrix and the Amersham. Because microarray experiments produce expressions for a large number of genes, one would expect that the statistical tests to be asymptotically equivalent. To explore the behaviour of the tests in small or moderate sample sizes, we illustrated the methodologies on data from computer-aided tomographic scans of 50 patients.

Results

It is shown that the relatively simple Wald's test (WT) is as powerful as the likelihood ratio test (LRT) and that both have consistently greater power than the score test. The regression test holds its empirical levels, and in some occasions is as powerful as the WT and the LRT.

Conclusion

A comparison between the reproducibility of two measuring instruments using the same set of subjects leads naturally to a comparison of two correlated indices. The presented methodology overcomes the difficulty noted by data analysts that dependence between datasets would confound any inferences one could make about the differences in measures of reliability and reproducibility. The statistical tests presented in this paper have good properties in terms of statistical power.
Literature
1.
2.
go back to reference Morgan W: A test for the significance of the difference between two variances in a sample from bivariate population. Biometrika. 1939, 31: 13-19. Morgan W: A test for the significance of the difference between two variances in a sample from bivariate population. Biometrika. 1939, 31: 13-19.
3.
go back to reference Gupta RC, Ma S: Testing the equality of coefficients of variation in k Testing normal populations. Communications in Statistics-Theory and Methods. 1996, 25: 115-132. 10.1080/03610929608831683.CrossRef Gupta RC, Ma S: Testing the equality of coefficients of variation in k Testing normal populations. Communications in Statistics-Theory and Methods. 1996, 25: 115-132. 10.1080/03610929608831683.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Fung WK, Tsang TS: A simulation study comparing tests for the equality of coefficients of variation. Statistics in Medicine. 1998, 17: 2003-2014. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19980915)17:17<2003::AID-SIM889>3.0.CO;2-I.CrossRefPubMed Fung WK, Tsang TS: A simulation study comparing tests for the equality of coefficients of variation. Statistics in Medicine. 1998, 17: 2003-2014. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19980915)17:17<2003::AID-SIM889>3.0.CO;2-I.CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Tian L: Inferences on the common coefficient of variation. Stat Med. 2005, 24 (14): 2213-2220. 10.1002/sim.2088.CrossRefPubMed Tian L: Inferences on the common coefficient of variation. Stat Med. 2005, 24 (14): 2213-2220. 10.1002/sim.2088.CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Weerahandi S: Exact statistical methods for data analysis. 1995, Springer: New YorkCrossRef Weerahandi S: Exact statistical methods for data analysis. 1995, Springer: New YorkCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Quan H, Shih W: Response to Letter to the Editor. Biometrics. 2000, 56: 301-303. 10.1111/j.0006-341X.2000.00301.x.CrossRef Quan H, Shih W: Response to Letter to the Editor. Biometrics. 2000, 56: 301-303. 10.1111/j.0006-341X.2000.00301.x.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Quan H, Shih W: Assessing reproducibility by the within-subject coefficient of variation with random effects models. Biometrics. 1996, 52: 1195-1203. 10.2307/2532835.CrossRefPubMed Quan H, Shih W: Assessing reproducibility by the within-subject coefficient of variation with random effects models. Biometrics. 1996, 52: 1195-1203. 10.2307/2532835.CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Giraudeau B, Ravaud P, Chastang C: Comments on Quan and Shih's Assessing Reproducibility by the Within-Subject Coefficient of Variation With Random Effects Models. Biometrics. 2000, 56: 301-303. 10.1111/j.0006-341X.2000.00301.x.CrossRefPubMed Giraudeau B, Ravaud P, Chastang C: Comments on Quan and Shih's Assessing Reproducibility by the Within-Subject Coefficient of Variation With Random Effects Models. Biometrics. 2000, 56: 301-303. 10.1111/j.0006-341X.2000.00301.x.CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Atkinson G, Neville A: Comment on the use of concordance correlation to assess the agreement between two variables. Biometrics. 1997, 53 (2): 775-777. Atkinson G, Neville A: Comment on the use of concordance correlation to assess the agreement between two variables. Biometrics. 1997, 53 (2): 775-777.
11.
go back to reference Lin LI, Chinchilli V: Rejoinder to the letter to the Editor from Atkinson and Neville. Biometrics. 1997, 53 (2): 777-778. 10.2307/2533947.CrossRef Lin LI, Chinchilli V: Rejoinder to the letter to the Editor from Atkinson and Neville. Biometrics. 1997, 53 (2): 777-778. 10.2307/2533947.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Shi L, Tong W, Fang H, Scherf U, Han J, Puri RK, Frueh FW, Goodsaid FM, Guo L, Su Z, Han T, Fuscoe JC, Xu ZA, Patterson TA, Hong H, Xie Q, Perkins RG, Chen JJ, Casciano DA: Cross-platform comparability of microarray technology: intra-platform consistency and appropriate data analysis procedures are essential. BMC Bioinformatics. 2005, 6 (Suppl 2): S12-10.1186/1471-2105-6-S2-S12.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Shi L, Tong W, Fang H, Scherf U, Han J, Puri RK, Frueh FW, Goodsaid FM, Guo L, Su Z, Han T, Fuscoe JC, Xu ZA, Patterson TA, Hong H, Xie Q, Perkins RG, Chen JJ, Casciano DA: Cross-platform comparability of microarray technology: intra-platform consistency and appropriate data analysis procedures are essential. BMC Bioinformatics. 2005, 6 (Suppl 2): S12-10.1186/1471-2105-6-S2-S12.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
13.
go back to reference Irizarry RA, Warren D, Spencer F, Kim IF, Biswal S, Frank BC, Gabrielson E, Garcia JGN, Geoghegan J, Germino G, Griffin C, Hilmer SC, Hoffman E, Jedlicka AE, Kawasaki E, Martínez-Murillo F, Morsberger L, Lee H, Petersen D, Quackenbush J, Scott A, Wilson M, Yang Y, Ye SQ, Yu W: Multiple-laboratory comparison of microarray platforms. Nature Methods. 2005, 2 (5): 345-350. 10.1038/nmeth756.CrossRefPubMed Irizarry RA, Warren D, Spencer F, Kim IF, Biswal S, Frank BC, Gabrielson E, Garcia JGN, Geoghegan J, Germino G, Griffin C, Hilmer SC, Hoffman E, Jedlicka AE, Kawasaki E, Martínez-Murillo F, Morsberger L, Lee H, Petersen D, Quackenbush J, Scott A, Wilson M, Yang Y, Ye SQ, Yu W: Multiple-laboratory comparison of microarray platforms. Nature Methods. 2005, 2 (5): 345-350. 10.1038/nmeth756.CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Tan PK, Downey TJ, Spitznagel EL, Xu P, Fu D, Dmitrov DS, Lempicki RA, Raaka BM, Cam MC: Evaluation of gene expression measurements from commercial microarray platforms. Nucleic Acids Res. 2003, 31: 5676-5684. 10.1093/nar/gkg763.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Tan PK, Downey TJ, Spitznagel EL, Xu P, Fu D, Dmitrov DS, Lempicki RA, Raaka BM, Cam MC: Evaluation of gene expression measurements from commercial microarray platforms. Nucleic Acids Res. 2003, 31: 5676-5684. 10.1093/nar/gkg763.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
go back to reference Kuo WP, Jenssen TK, Butte AJ, Ohno-Machado L, Kohane IS: Analysis of matched mRNA measurements from two different microarray technologies. Bioinformatics. 2002, 18: 405-412. 10.1093/bioinformatics/18.3.405.CrossRefPubMed Kuo WP, Jenssen TK, Butte AJ, Ohno-Machado L, Kohane IS: Analysis of matched mRNA measurements from two different microarray technologies. Bioinformatics. 2002, 18: 405-412. 10.1093/bioinformatics/18.3.405.CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Yauk CL, Berndt ML, Williams A, Douglas GR: Comprehensive comparison of six microarray technologies. Nucleic Acids Res. 2004, 32 (15): e124-10.1093/nar/gnh123. doi:101093/nar/gnh123CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Yauk CL, Berndt ML, Williams A, Douglas GR: Comprehensive comparison of six microarray technologies. Nucleic Acids Res. 2004, 32 (15): e124-10.1093/nar/gnh123. doi:101093/nar/gnh123CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
17.
go back to reference Jarvinen A-K, Hautaniemi S, Edgren H, Auvinen P, Saarela J, Kallioniemi OP, Monni O: Are data from different gene expression microarray platforms comparable?. Genomics. 2004, 83: 1164-1168. 10.1016/j.ygeno.2004.01.004.CrossRefPubMed Jarvinen A-K, Hautaniemi S, Edgren H, Auvinen P, Saarela J, Kallioniemi OP, Monni O: Are data from different gene expression microarray platforms comparable?. Genomics. 2004, 83: 1164-1168. 10.1016/j.ygeno.2004.01.004.CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference Wang H, He X, Band M, Wilson C, Liu L: A study of inter-lab and inter-platform agreement of DNA microarray data. BMC Genomics. 2005, 6: 71-10.1186/1471-2164-6-71.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Wang H, He X, Band M, Wilson C, Liu L: A study of inter-lab and inter-platform agreement of DNA microarray data. BMC Genomics. 2005, 6: 71-10.1186/1471-2164-6-71.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
19.
go back to reference Lin L: A concordance correlation coefficient to evaluate reproducibility. Biometrics. 1989, 45: 255-268. 10.2307/2532051.CrossRefPubMed Lin L: A concordance correlation coefficient to evaluate reproducibility. Biometrics. 1989, 45: 255-268. 10.2307/2532051.CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Dunn G: Design and Analysis of Reliability Studies. Statistical Methods in Medical Research. 1992, 1: 123-157. 10.1177/096228029200100202.CrossRefPubMed Dunn G: Design and Analysis of Reliability Studies. Statistical Methods in Medical Research. 1992, 1: 123-157. 10.1177/096228029200100202.CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Donner A, Zou G: Testing the equality of dependent intraclass correlation coefficients. The Statistician. 2002, 51 (part 3): 367-379. Donner A, Zou G: Testing the equality of dependent intraclass correlation coefficients. The Statistician. 2002, 51 (part 3): 367-379.
22.
go back to reference Shoukri M, El-Kum N, Walter SD: Interval estimation and optimal design for the within-subject coefficient of variation for continuous and binary variables. BMC Medical Research Methodology. 2006, 6: 24-10.1186/1471-2288-6-24. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-6-24.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Shoukri M, El-Kum N, Walter SD: Interval estimation and optimal design for the within-subject coefficient of variation for continuous and binary variables. BMC Medical Research Methodology. 2006, 6: 24-10.1186/1471-2288-6-24. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-6-24.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
23.
go back to reference Fleiss J: The Design and Analysis of Clinical Experiments. 1986, J Wiley, New York Fleiss J: The Design and Analysis of Clinical Experiments. 1986, J Wiley, New York
24.
go back to reference Donner A, Bull S: Inferences concerning a common intraclass correlation coefficient. Biometrics. 1983, 39: 771-775. 10.2307/2531107.CrossRefPubMed Donner A, Bull S: Inferences concerning a common intraclass correlation coefficient. Biometrics. 1983, 39: 771-775. 10.2307/2531107.CrossRefPubMed
25.
go back to reference Blodeau M, Brenner D: Theory of Multivariate Statistics. 1999, New York: Springer Blodeau M, Brenner D: Theory of Multivariate Statistics. 1999, New York: Springer
26.
go back to reference Searle RS, Casella G, McCulloch CE: Variance Components. 1992, Wiley- InterscienceCrossRef Searle RS, Casella G, McCulloch CE: Variance Components. 1992, Wiley- InterscienceCrossRef
27.
go back to reference Stuart A, Ord K: Advanced Theory of Statistics. 1987, London: Griffin, 1: 324-5 Stuart A, Ord K: Advanced Theory of Statistics. 1987, London: Griffin, 1: 324-5
28.
29.
go back to reference Neyman J, Scott E: On the use of C(α) optimal tests of composite hypotheses. Bulletin of the International Statistical Institute, Proceedings of the 35th Session. 1966, 41: 477-497. Neyman J, Scott E: On the use of C(α) optimal tests of composite hypotheses. Bulletin of the International Statistical Institute, Proceedings of the 35th Session. 1966, 41: 477-497.
30.
go back to reference Neyman J: Optimal asymptotic tests of composite hypotheses. Probability and Statistics: The Harold Cramer Volume. Edited by: Grenander V. 1959, Wiley: New York, 213-234. Neyman J: Optimal asymptotic tests of composite hypotheses. Probability and Statistics: The Harold Cramer Volume. Edited by: Grenander V. 1959, Wiley: New York, 213-234.
31.
go back to reference Bradley E, Blackwood L: Comparing paired data: A simultaneous test for means and variances. The American Statistician. 1989, 43: 234-235. 10.2307/2685368. Bradley E, Blackwood L: Comparing paired data: A simultaneous test for means and variances. The American Statistician. 1989, 43: 234-235. 10.2307/2685368.
32.
go back to reference Draper N, Smith H: Applied Regression Analysis. 1981, Wiley-Inter-science, 2 Draper N, Smith H: Applied Regression Analysis. 1981, Wiley-Inter-science, 2
33.
go back to reference Landis R, Koch G: The measurements of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977, 33: 159-174. 10.2307/2529310.CrossRefPubMed Landis R, Koch G: The measurements of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977, 33: 159-174. 10.2307/2529310.CrossRefPubMed
34.
go back to reference Turner SW, Toone BK, Brett-Jones JR: Computerized tomographic scan in early schizophrenia- preliminary findings. Psychological Medicine. 1986, 16: 219-225.CrossRefPubMed Turner SW, Toone BK, Brett-Jones JR: Computerized tomographic scan in early schizophrenia- preliminary findings. Psychological Medicine. 1986, 16: 219-225.CrossRefPubMed
35.
go back to reference Cohen J: A coefficient of agreement for nominal scale. Educational and Psychological Measurements. 1960, 20: 27-46.CrossRef Cohen J: A coefficient of agreement for nominal scale. Educational and Psychological Measurements. 1960, 20: 27-46.CrossRef
36.
go back to reference Donner A, Eliasziw M: Statistical implications for the choice between a dichotomous or continuous trait in studies of inter-observer agreement. Biometrics. 1994, 50: 550-777. 10.2307/2533400.CrossRefPubMed Donner A, Eliasziw M: Statistical implications for the choice between a dichotomous or continuous trait in studies of inter-observer agreement. Biometrics. 1994, 50: 550-777. 10.2307/2533400.CrossRefPubMed
37.
go back to reference Shoukri MM, Donner A: Efficiency considerations in the analysis of inter-observer agreement. Biostatistics. 2001, 2 (3): 323-336. 10.1093/biostatistics/2.3.323.CrossRefPubMed Shoukri MM, Donner A: Efficiency considerations in the analysis of inter-observer agreement. Biostatistics. 2001, 2 (3): 323-336. 10.1093/biostatistics/2.3.323.CrossRefPubMed
38.
go back to reference Davison AC, Hinkley D: Bootstrap Methods and Their Application. 1997, Cambridge: Cambridge University PressCrossRef Davison AC, Hinkley D: Bootstrap Methods and Their Application. 1997, Cambridge: Cambridge University PressCrossRef
39.
go back to reference Ukomunne OC, Davison AC, Gulliford MC, Chinn S: Non-parametric bootstrap confidence intervals for the intra-class correlation coefficient. Statistics in Medicine. 2003, 22: 3805-3821. 10.1002/sim.1643.CrossRef Ukomunne OC, Davison AC, Gulliford MC, Chinn S: Non-parametric bootstrap confidence intervals for the intra-class correlation coefficient. Statistics in Medicine. 2003, 22: 3805-3821. 10.1002/sim.1643.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Comparison of two dependent within subject coefficients of variation to evaluate the reproducibility of measurement devices
Authors
Mohamed M Shoukri
Dilek Colak
Namik Kaya
Allan Donner
Publication date
01-12-2008
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology / Issue 1/2008
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2288
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-8-24

Other articles of this Issue 1/2008

BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2008 Go to the issue