Assessment of the effect on statistical power of regression model misspecification by using techniques of mathematical statistics and simulation study

Objectives. This paper seeks to assess the effect on statistical power of regression model misspecification in a variety of situations. ^ Methods and results. The effect of misspecification in regression can be approximated by evaluating the correlation between the correct specification and the misspecification of the outcome variable (Harris 2010).In this paper, three misspecified models (linear, categorical and fractional polynomial) were considered. In the first section, the mathematical method of calculating the correlation between correct and misspecified models with simple mathematical forms was derived and demonstrated. In the second section, data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES 2007-2008) were used to examine such correlations. Our study shows that comparing to linear or categorical models, the fractional polynomial models, with the higher correlations, provided a better approximation of the true relationship, which was illustrated by LOESS regression. In the third section, we present the results of simulation studies that demonstrate overall misspecification in regression can produce marked decreases in power with small sample sizes. However, the categorical model had greatest power, ranging from 0.877 to 0.936 depending on sample size and outcome variable used. The power of fractional polynomial model was close to that of linear model, which ranged from 0.69 to 0.83, and appeared to be affected by the increased degrees of freedom of this model.^ Conclusion. Correlations between alternative model specifications can be used to provide a good approximation of the effect on statistical power of misspecification when the sample size is large. When model specifications have known simple mathematical forms, such correlations can be calculated mathematically. Actual public health data from NHANES 2007-2008 were used as examples to demonstrate the situations with unknown or complex correct model specification. Simulation of power for misspecified models confirmed the results based on correlation methods but also illustrated the effect of model degrees of freedom on power.^

Robust effect sizes and their confidence intervals for group difference between trajectories in hierarchical linear growth model

Hierarchical linear growth model (HLGM), as a flexible and powerful analytic method, has played an increased important role in psychology, public health and medical sciences in recent decades. Mostly, researchers who conduct HLGM are interested in the treatment effect on individual trajectories, which can be indicated by the cross-level interaction effects. However, the statistical hypothesis test for the effect of cross-level interaction in HLGM only show us whether there is a significant group difference in the average rate of change, rate of acceleration or higher polynomial effect; it fails to convey information about the magnitude of the difference between the group trajectories at specific time point. Thus, reporting and interpreting effect sizes have been increased emphases in HLGM in recent years, due to the limitations and increased criticisms for statistical hypothesis testing. However, most researchers fail to report these model-implied effect sizes for group trajectories comparison and their corresponding confidence intervals in HLGM analysis, since lack of appropriate and standard functions to estimate effect sizes associated with the model-implied difference between grouping trajectories in HLGM, and also lack of computing packages in the popular statistical software to automatically calculate them. ^ The present project is the first to establish the appropriate computing functions to assess the standard difference between grouping trajectories in HLGM. We proposed the two functions to estimate effect sizes on model-based grouping trajectories difference at specific time, we also suggested the robust effect sizes to reduce the bias of estimated effect sizes. Then, we applied the proposed functions to estimate the population effect sizes (d ) and robust effect sizes (du) on the cross-level interaction in HLGM by using the three simulated datasets, and also we compared the three methods of constructing confidence intervals around d and du recommended the best one for application. At the end, we constructed 95% confidence intervals with the suitable method for the effect sizes what we obtained with the three simulated datasets. ^ The effect sizes between grouping trajectories for the three simulated longitudinal datasets indicated that even though the statistical hypothesis test shows no significant difference between grouping trajectories, effect sizes between these grouping trajectories can still be large at some time points. Therefore, effect sizes between grouping trajectories in HLGM analysis provide us additional and meaningful information to assess group effect on individual trajectories. In addition, we also compared the three methods to construct 95% confident intervals around corresponding effect sizes in this project, which handled with the uncertainty of effect sizes to population parameter. We suggested the noncentral t-distribution based method when the assumptions held, and the bootstrap bias-corrected and accelerated method when the assumptions are not met.^