Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2015

Open Access 01-12-2015 | Research article

Comparing denominator degrees of freedom approximations for the generalized linear mixed model in analyzing binary outcome in small sample cluster-randomized trials

Authors: Peng Li, David T Redden

Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology | Issue 1/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Small number of clusters and large variation of cluster sizes commonly exist in cluster-randomized trials (CRTs) and are often the critical factors affecting the validity and efficiency of statistical analyses. F tests are commonly used in the generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) to test intervention effects in CRTs. The most challenging issue for the approximate Wald F test is the estimation of the denominator degrees of freedom (DDF). Some DDF approximation methods have been proposed, but their small sample performances in analysing binary outcomes in CRTs with few heterogeneous clusters are not well studied.

Methods

The small sample performances of five DDF approximations for the F test are compared and contrasted under CRT frameworks with simulations. Specifically, we illustrate how the intraclass correlation (ICC), sample size, and the variation of cluster sizes affect the type I error and statistical power when different DDF approximation methods in GLMM are used to test intervention effect in CRTs with binary outcomes. The results are also illustrated using a real CRT dataset.

Results

Our simulation results suggest that the Between-Within method maintains the nominal type I error rates even when the total number of clusters is as low as 10 and is robust to the variation of the cluster sizes. The Residual and Containment methods have inflated type I error rates when the cluster number is small (<30) and the inflation becomes more severe with increased variation in cluster sizes. In contrast, the Satterthwaite and Kenward-Roger methods can provide tests with very conservative type I error rates when the total cluster number is small (<30) and the conservativeness becomes more severe as variation in cluster sizes increases. Our simulations also suggest that the Between-Within method is statistically more powerful than the Satterthwaite or Kenward-Roger method in analysing CRTs with heterogeneous cluster sizes, especially when the cluster number is small.

Conclusion

We conclude that the Between-Within denominator degrees of freedom approximation method for F tests should be recommended when the GLMM is used in analysing CRTs with binary outcomes and few heterogeneous clusters, due to its type I error properties and relatively higher power.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Campbell MJ, Donner A, Klar N. Developments in cluster randomized trials and statistics in medicine. Stat Med. 2007;26(1):2–19.CrossRefPubMed Campbell MJ, Donner A, Klar N. Developments in cluster randomized trials and statistics in medicine. Stat Med. 2007;26(1):2–19.CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Donner A, Klar N. Pitfalls of and controversies in cluster randomization trials. Am J Publ Health. 2004;94(3):416–22.CrossRef Donner A, Klar N. Pitfalls of and controversies in cluster randomization trials. Am J Publ Health. 2004;94(3):416–22.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Eldridge SM, Ukoumunne OC, Carlin JB. The intra-cluster correlation coefficient in cluster randomized trials: a review of definitions. Int Stat Rev. 2009;77(3):378–94.CrossRef Eldridge SM, Ukoumunne OC, Carlin JB. The intra-cluster correlation coefficient in cluster randomized trials: a review of definitions. Int Stat Rev. 2009;77(3):378–94.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Campbell MK, Piaggio G, Elbourne DR, Altman DG, Group C. Consort 2010 statement: extension to cluster randomised trials. BMJ. 2012;345:e5661.CrossRefPubMed Campbell MK, Piaggio G, Elbourne DR, Altman DG, Group C. Consort 2010 statement: extension to cluster randomised trials. BMJ. 2012;345:e5661.CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Murray DM, Varnell SP, Blitstein JL. Design and analysis of group-randomized trials: a review of recent methodological developments. Am J Publ Health. 2004;94(3):423–32.CrossRef Murray DM, Varnell SP, Blitstein JL. Design and analysis of group-randomized trials: a review of recent methodological developments. Am J Publ Health. 2004;94(3):423–32.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Harville DA. Maximum likelihood approaches to variance component estimation and to related problems. J Am Stat Assoc. 1977;72:9. Harville DA. Maximum likelihood approaches to variance component estimation and to related problems. J Am Stat Assoc. 1977;72:9.
7.
go back to reference Liang KY, Zeger SL. Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models. Biometrika. 1986;73(1):10.CrossRef Liang KY, Zeger SL. Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models. Biometrika. 1986;73(1):10.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Vonesh EF. Generalized linear and nonlinear models for correlated data: theory and applications using SAS. Cary, NC: SAS Institute, Inc; 2012. Vonesh EF. Generalized linear and nonlinear models for correlated data: theory and applications using SAS. Cary, NC: SAS Institute, Inc; 2012.
9.
go back to reference Bolker BM, Brooks ME, Clark CJ, Geange SW, Poulsen JR, Stevens MHH, et al. Generalized linear mixed models: a practical guide for ecology and evolution. Trends Ecol Evol. 2009;24(3):127–35.CrossRefPubMed Bolker BM, Brooks ME, Clark CJ, Geange SW, Poulsen JR, Stevens MHH, et al. Generalized linear mixed models: a practical guide for ecology and evolution. Trends Ecol Evol. 2009;24(3):127–35.CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Bellamy SL, Li Y, Lin XH, Ryan LM. Quantifying PQL bias in estimating cluster-level covariate effects in generalized linear mixed models for group-randomized trials. Stat Sinica. 2005;15(4):1015–32. Bellamy SL, Li Y, Lin XH, Ryan LM. Quantifying PQL bias in estimating cluster-level covariate effects in generalized linear mixed models for group-randomized trials. Stat Sinica. 2005;15(4):1015–32.
11.
go back to reference Littell RC, Milliken GA, Stroup WW, Wolfinger RD, Schabenberger O. SAS® for Mixed Models. 2nd ed. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.; 2006. Littell RC, Milliken GA, Stroup WW, Wolfinger RD, Schabenberger O. SAS® for Mixed Models. 2nd ed. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.; 2006.
12.
go back to reference Spilke J, Piepho HP, Hu XY. A simulation study on tests of hypotheses and confidence intervals for fixed effects in mixed models for blocked experiments with missing data. J Agric Biol Envir S. 2005;10(3):374–89.CrossRef Spilke J, Piepho HP, Hu XY. A simulation study on tests of hypotheses and confidence intervals for fixed effects in mixed models for blocked experiments with missing data. J Agric Biol Envir S. 2005;10(3):374–89.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Fai AHT, Cornelius PL. Approximate F-tests of multiple degree of freedom hypotheses in generalized least squares analyses of unbalanced split-plot experiments. J Stat Comput Sim. 1996;54(4):363–78.CrossRef Fai AHT, Cornelius PL. Approximate F-tests of multiple degree of freedom hypotheses in generalized least squares analyses of unbalanced split-plot experiments. J Stat Comput Sim. 1996;54(4):363–78.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Kenward MG, Roger JH. Small sample inference for fixed effects from restricted maximum likelihood. Biometrics. 1997;53(3):983–97.CrossRefPubMed Kenward MG, Roger JH. Small sample inference for fixed effects from restricted maximum likelihood. Biometrics. 1997;53(3):983–97.CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Schaalje GB, McBride JB, Fellingham GW. Adequacy of approximations to distributions of test statistics in complex mixed linear models. J Agric Biol Envir S. 2002;7(4):512–24.CrossRef Schaalje GB, McBride JB, Fellingham GW. Adequacy of approximations to distributions of test statistics in complex mixed linear models. J Agric Biol Envir S. 2002;7(4):512–24.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Breslow NE, Clayton DG. Approximate inference in generalized linear mixed models. J Am Stat Assoc. 1993;88(421):9–25. Breslow NE, Clayton DG. Approximate inference in generalized linear mixed models. J Am Stat Assoc. 1993;88(421):9–25.
17.
go back to reference McCulloch CE. Maximum likelihood algorithms for generalized linear mixed models. J Am Stat Assoc. 1997;92(437):162–70.CrossRef McCulloch CE. Maximum likelihood algorithms for generalized linear mixed models. J Am Stat Assoc. 1997;92(437):162–70.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Schluchter MDaE JD. Small-sample adjustments to tests with unbalanced repeated measures assuming several covariance structures. J Stat Comput Sim. 1990;37:19. Schluchter MDaE JD. Small-sample adjustments to tests with unbalanced repeated measures assuming several covariance structures. J Stat Comput Sim. 1990;37:19.
19.
go back to reference Satterthwaite FE. An approximate distribution of estimates of variance components. Biom Bull. 1946;2:110–4.CrossRef Satterthwaite FE. An approximate distribution of estimates of variance components. Biom Bull. 1946;2:110–4.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Lee EW, Dubin N. Estimation and sample-size considerations for clustered binary responses. Stat Med. 1994;13(12):1241–52.CrossRefPubMed Lee EW, Dubin N. Estimation and sample-size considerations for clustered binary responses. Stat Med. 1994;13(12):1241–52.CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Gulliford MC, Adams G, Ukoumunne OC, Latinovic R, Chinn S, Campbell MJ. Intraclass correlation coefficient and outcome prevalence are associated in clustered binary data. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58(3):246–51.CrossRefPubMed Gulliford MC, Adams G, Ukoumunne OC, Latinovic R, Chinn S, Campbell MJ. Intraclass correlation coefficient and outcome prevalence are associated in clustered binary data. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58(3):246–51.CrossRefPubMed
22.
go back to reference Omar RZ, Thompson SG. Analysis of a cluster randomized trial with binary outcome data using a multi-level model. Stat Med. 2000;19(19):2675–88.CrossRefPubMed Omar RZ, Thompson SG. Analysis of a cluster randomized trial with binary outcome data using a multi-level model. Stat Med. 2000;19(19):2675–88.CrossRefPubMed
23.
go back to reference Turner RM, Omar RZ, Thompson SG. Bayesian methods of analysis for cluster randomized trials with binary outcome data. Stat Med. 2001;20(3):453–72.CrossRefPubMed Turner RM, Omar RZ, Thompson SG. Bayesian methods of analysis for cluster randomized trials with binary outcome data. Stat Med. 2001;20(3):453–72.CrossRefPubMed
24.
go back to reference Elston DA. Estimation of denominator degrees of freedom of F-distributions for assessing Wald statistics for fixed-effect factors in unbalanced mixed models. Biometrics. 1998;54(3):1085–96.CrossRef Elston DA. Estimation of denominator degrees of freedom of F-distributions for assessing Wald statistics for fixed-effect factors in unbalanced mixed models. Biometrics. 1998;54(3):1085–96.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Comparing denominator degrees of freedom approximations for the generalized linear mixed model in analyzing binary outcome in small sample cluster-randomized trials
Authors
Peng Li
David T Redden
Publication date
01-12-2015
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology / Issue 1/2015
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2288
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-015-0026-x

Other articles of this Issue 1/2015

BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2015 Go to the issue