Hi All,

Based upon a discussion on power/sample size calculations on another, non-R 
related, list, some light bulbs went on regarding the assumptions of what type 
of statistical test is going to be used with various power/sample size 
calculators/functions for proportions. In some cases, this is clearly stated, 
in others, it is not.

In the case of power.prop.test() and comparing outputs against other 
calculators, there appears to be an implied presumption that an un-corrected 
chi-square test will be used, as opposed to a corrected chi-square or Fisher 
Exact Test (FET), in the 2x2 case. Sample sizes for the un-corrected chi-square 
will generally be smaller than either the corrected chi-square or the FET, 
given similar inputs, where the latter two, not surprisingly given their common 
conservative bias, will yield similar sample size results. 

This is not explicitly documented in ?power.prop.test, though it is in some 
other applications, as noted above. 

As a particular example from the other discussions, using p1 = 0.142, p2 = 
0.266, with power = 0.8 and sig.level = 0.05, power.prop.test() yields a sample 
size of ~165 per group. Other calculators that presume either a corrected 
chi-square or the FET, yield ~180 per group. 

I raise this issue, as should one use the function to calculate a prospective 
sample size for a study, and then actually use a corrected chi-square to 
analyze the data, per routine use and/or a formal analysis plan, the power of 
that test will be lower than that which was presumed for the a priori 
calculation. It may not make a big difference in some proportion of the cases 
relative to p <= alpha, but given the idiosyncrasies of the observed data at 
the end of the study, along with the effective loss of some power, it may very 
well be relevant to the results and their strict interpretation. It may also 
impact, to some extent, the a priori planning for the study, relative to the 
needed target sample size, budgeting and other considerations for a study 
sponsor.

Is there any logic in adding some notes to ?power.prop.test, to indicate the 
implied presumption of the use of an un-corrected chi-square test? 

Thanks for any comments, including telling me that I need more caffeine and to 
increase my oxygen uptake...

Regards,

Marc Schwartz

______________________________________________
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel

Reply via email to