Biofeedback and Self-regulation

, Volume 21, Issue 2, pp 105–119 | Cite as

Using statistical equivalence testing in clinical biofeedback research

  • John P. Hatch
Article

Abstract

The technique of statistical equivalence testing is described and recommended for use in clinical biofeedback research. Equivalence testing is valuable in aiding the interpretation of negative results or statistically significant results where effects are small in clinical terms. The method is also useful for establishing the similarity of treatment groups at baseline or for showing that the effect of a potentially confounding variable is tolerably small. Finally, equivalence testing is recommended as a method for documenting the equivalence of biofeedback therapy to proven conventional medical therapies in clinical equivalence trials. Examples, drawn from published literature, are provided.

Key Words

statistics data analysis equivalence testing negative results 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anderson, S., & Hauck, W. W. (1983). A new procedure for testing equivalence in comparative bioavailability and other clinical trials.Communication in Statistics — Theory and Methods, A12, 2663–2692.Google Scholar
  2. Blanchard, E. B., Appelbaum, K. A., Radnitz, C. L., Morrill, B., Michultka, D., Kirsch, C., Guarnieri, P., Hillhouse J., Evans, D. D., Jaccard, J. & Barron, K. D. (1990). A controlled evaluation of thermal biofeedback and thermal biofeedback combined with cognitive therapy in the treatment of vascular headache.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 58, 216–224.Google Scholar
  3. Cohen, J. (1977).Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  4. Collins, R., Peto, R., MacMahon, S., Herbert, P., Fiebach, N. H., Eberlein, K. A., Godwin, J., Qizilbash, N., Taylor, J. O., & Hennekens, C. H. (1990). Blood pressure, stroke, and coronary heart disease. Part 2. Short-term reductions in blood pressure: Overview of randomized drug trials in their epidemiological context.Lancet, 335, 827–838.Google Scholar
  5. Hatch, J. P. (1987). Guidelines for controlled clinical trials of biofeedback. In J. P. Hatch, J. D. Rugh, and J. G. Fisher (Eds.)Biofeedback: Studies in clinical efficacy (pp. 323–363). New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  6. Hatch, J. P., Klatt, K., Fitzgerald, M., Jasheway, L. S., & Fisher, J. G. (1983). Cognitive and physiologic responses to EMG biofeedback and three types of pseudofeedback during a muscular relaxation task.Biofeedback and Self-Regulation, 8, 409–425.Google Scholar
  7. Hauch, W. W., & Anderson, S. (1984). A new statistical procedure for testing equivalence in two-group comparative bioavailability trials.Journal of Pharmacokinetics and Biopharmaceutics, 12, 83–91; see also erratum on page 657.Google Scholar
  8. Hauck, W. W. & Anderson, S. (1991). Individual bioequivalence: What matters to the patient.Statistics in Medicine, 10, 959–960.Google Scholar
  9. Hauschke, D., Steinijans, V. W., & Diletti, E. (1992). A distribution-free procedure for the statistical analysis of bioequivalence studies.International Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, Therapy and Toxicology, 30 Suppl. No. 1-1992, S37-S43.Google Scholar
  10. Hauck, W. W., & Anderson, S. (1986). A proposal for interpreting and reporting negative studies.Statistics in Medicine, 5, 203–209.Google Scholar
  11. Hintze, J. L. (1991).Power analysis and sample size (Version 1.0) (pp. 193–199). Kaysville, UT: Author.Google Scholar
  12. Kirshner, B. (1991). Methodological standards for assessing therapeutic equivalence.Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 44, 839–849.Google Scholar
  13. McGrady, A. (1994). Effects of group relaxation training and thermal biofeedback on blood pressure and related physiological and psychological variables in essential hypertension.Biofeedback and Self-Regulation, 19, 51–66.Google Scholar
  14. Phillips, K. F. (1990). Power of the two one-sided tests procedure in bioequivalence.Journal of Pharmacokinetics and Biopharmaceutics, 18, 137–144.Google Scholar
  15. Selwyn, M. R., & Hall, N. R. (1984). On Bayesian methods for bioequivalence.Biometrics, 40, 1103–1108.Google Scholar
  16. Steiner, S. S., & Dince, W. M. (1981). Biofeedback efficacy studies: A critique of critiques.Biofeedback and Self-Regulation, 6, 275–288.Google Scholar
  17. Rogers, J. L., Howard, K. I., & Vessey, J. T. (1993). Using significance tests to evaluate equivalence between two experimental groups.Psychological Bulletin, 113, 553–565.Google Scholar
  18. Westlake, W. J. (1981) Response to bioequivalence testing — A need to rethink.Biometrics, 37, 591–593.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • John P. Hatch
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychiatryThe University of Texas Health Science Center at San AntonioSan Antonio

Personalised recommendations