首页> 外文会议>2018 IEEE/ACM 40th International Conference on Software Engineering >Journal First Effect Sizes and their Variance for AB/BA Crossover Design Studies
【24h】

Journal First Effect Sizes and their Variance for AB/BA Crossover Design Studies

机译:期刊第一 AB / BA交叉设计研究的效应量及其方差

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

We addressed the issues related to repeated measures experimental design such as an AB/BA crossover design (where each participant uses each method) that have been neither discussed nor addressed in the software engineering literature. Firstly, there are potentially two different standardized mean difference effect sizes that can be calculated, depending on whether the mean difference is standardized by the pooled within groups variance or the within-participants variance. Hence, we provided equations for non-standardized and standardized effect sizes and explained the need for two different types of standardized effect size, one for the repeated measures and one that would be equivalent to an independent groups design. Secondly, as for any estimated parameters and also for the purposes of undertaking meta-analysis, it is necessary to calculate the variance of the standardized mean difference effect sizes (which is not the same as the variance of the study). Hence, we provided formulas for the small sample size effect size variance and the medium sample size approximation to the effect size variance, for both types of standardized effect size. We also presented the model underlying the AB/BA crossover design and provided two examples (an empirical analysis of the real data set by Scanniello, as well as simulated data) to demonstrate how to construct the two standardized mean difference effect sizes and their variances, both from standard descriptive statistics and from the outputs provided by the linear mixed model package lme4 in R. A conclusion is that crossover designs should be considered (instead of between groups design) only if: · previous research has suggested that ρ is greater than zero and preferably greater than 0.25; · there is either strong theoretical argument, or empirical evidence from a well-powered study, that the period by technique interaction is negligible. Summarizing, our journal first paper [3]: (1) Presents the formulas needed to calculate both non-standardized and standardized mean difference effect sizes for AB/BA crossover designs (see Section 4 and 5 of our paper [3]). (2) Presents the formulas needed to estimate the variances of the non-standardized and standardized effect sizes which in the later cases need to be appropriate for the small to medium sample sizes commonly used in software engineering crossover designs (see Section 5 of our paper [3]). (3) Explains how to calculate the effect sizes and their variances both from the descriptive statistics that should be reported and from the raw data (see Section 6 of our paper [3]). It is worth mentioning that we based our formulas on our own corrections to the formulas presented earlier by Curtin et al. [1]. Our corrections for the variances of standardized weighted mean difference of an AB/BA cross-over trial were accepted by the author of the original formulas (Curtin), submitted jointly as a letter to Editor of Statistics in Medicine to assure the widespread (also beyond the software engineering domain) adoption of the corrected formulas, and accepted [2]. We proposed an alternative formulation of the standardized effect size for individual difference effects that is comparable with the standardized effect size commonly used for pretest/posttest studies. We also corrected the small sample size and moderate sample size variances reported by Curtin et al. for both the individual difference effect size and the standardized effect size comparable to independent groups trials, showing the derivation of the formulas from the variance of at-variable. Using these results, researchers can now correctly calculate standardized effect size variances, allowing the calculation of confidence intervals for AB/BA cross-over trials, which in turn provides a direct link to null hypothesis testing and supports meta-analysis. Meta-analysts can now validly aggregate together results from independent groups, pretest/posttest and AB/BA cross-over trials. Last but not least, the presented contributions allow corrections of previously reported results.
机译:我们解决了与重复测量实验设计有关的问题,例如AB / BA交叉设计(每个参与者都使用每种方法),而这些问题在软件工程文献中都没有讨论或解决。首先,取决于平均差异是通过组内方差汇总还是参与者内方差标准化来计算的,有可能会计算出两种不同的标准化均值差异效应大小。因此,我们提供了非标准化和标准化效果量的方程式,并解释了对两种不同类型的标准化效果量的需求,一种用于重复测量,另一种等效于独立组设计。其次,对于任何估计参数以及进行荟萃分析的目的,有必要计算标准化平均差异效应量的方差(与研究方差不同)。因此,对于两种类型的标准化效应量,我们提供了小样本量效应量方差和中等样本量近似于效应量方差的公式。我们还介绍了AB / BA交叉设计的基础模型,并提供了两个示例(对Scanniello的真实数据集以及模拟数据进行的经验分析),以演示如何构建两个标准化的均值差效应大小及其方差,从标准描述性统计数据和R中线性混合模型软件包lme4提供的输出中得出结论。结论是,仅在以下情况下才应考虑交叉设计(而不是组间设计):·先前的研究表明ρ大于零并且优选大于0.25; ·有强有力的理论论据,或有力的研究提供的经验证据,表明通过技术互动进行的时期可以忽略不计。总而言之,我们的期刊第一篇论文[3]:(1)给出了用于计算AB / BA交叉设计的非标准化和标准化均值差异影响大小所需的公式(请参见论文[3]的第4和第5节)。 (2)提出估算非标准化和标准化效应量方差所需的公式,在以后的情况下,这些公式应适合于软件工程交叉设计中常用的中小样本量(参见本文第5节) [3])。 (3)解释如何从应报告的描述性统计数据和原始数据中计算效应量及其方差(请参见本文第6节[3])。值得一提的是,我们的公式基于对Curtin等人先前提出的公式的修正。 [1]。原始公式(Curtin)的作者接受了我们对AB / BA交叉试验的标准化加权平均差异方差的更正,并以信函形式提交给《医学统计》,以确保其广泛传播(也包括软件工程领域)采用更正的公式,并被接受[2]。我们提出了一种针对个体差异效应的标准化效应量的替代方案,该替代量可与通常用于前测/后测研究的标准化效应量相比较。我们还纠正了Curtin等人报道的小样本量和中等样本量方差。与独立小组试验相比,个体差异效应量和标准化效应量均显示出公式从变量的方差推导而来。利用这些结果,研究人员现在可以正确地计算标准化的效应量方差,从而可以计算AB / BA交叉试验的置信区间,进而提供了与原假设检验的直接链接并支持荟萃分析。现在,元分析人员可以有效地将独立组,前测/后测以及AB / BA交叉试验的结果汇总在一起。最后但并非最不重要的一点是,提出的贡献允许对先前报告的结果进行更正。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号