↓ Skip to main content

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

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
98 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
87 Mendeley
Title
Comparing denominator degrees of freedom approximations for the generalized linear mixed model in analyzing binary outcome in small sample cluster-randomized trials
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, April 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12874-015-0026-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Peng Li, David T Redden

Abstract

Small number of clusters and large variation of cluster sizes commonly exist 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. 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. 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. We conclude that the Between-Within denominator degree 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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 87 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 85 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 21 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 14%
Student > Master 10 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 6%
Professor 4 5%
Other 14 16%
Unknown 21 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 11%
Psychology 7 8%
Mathematics 7 8%
Environmental Science 6 7%
Other 20 23%
Unknown 26 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 August 2023.
All research outputs
#14,938,907
of 24,192,521 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,441
of 2,151 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#139,145
of 269,410 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#14
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,192,521 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,151 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 269,410 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.