Advertisement

Behavior Research Methods

, Volume 39, Issue 4, pp 755–766 | Cite as

Sample size planning for the coefficient of variation from the accuracy in parameter estimation approach

  • Ken KelleyEmail author
Article

Abstract

The accuracy in parameter estimation approach to sample size planning is developed for the coefficient of variation, where the goal of the method is to obtain an accurate parameter estimate by achieving a sufficiently narrow confidence interval. The first method allows researchers to plan sample size so that the expected width of the confidence interval for the population coefficient of variation is sufficiently narrow. A modification allows a desired degree of assurance to be incorporated into the method, so that the obtained confidence interval will be sufficiently narrow with some specified probability (e.g., 85% assurance that the 95% confidence interval width will be no wider than ω units). Tables of necessary sample size are provided for a variety of scenarios that may help researchers planning a study where the coefficient of variation is of interest plan an appropriate sample size in order to have a sufficiently narrow confidence interval, optionally with some specified assurance of the confidence interval being sufficiently narrow. Freely available computer routines have been developed that allow researchers to easily implement all of the methods discussed in the article.

Keywords

Confidence Interval Width Dence Interval Lower Confidence Limit Noncentrality Parameter Narrow Confidence Interval 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Algina, J., &Olejnik, S. (2000). Determining sample size for accurate estimation of the squared multiple correlation coefficient.Multivariate Behavioral Research,35, 119–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Babkoff, H., Kelly, T. L., &Naitoh, P. (2001). Trial-to-trial variance in choice reaction time as a measure of the effect of stimulants during sleep deprivation.Military Psychology,13, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bedeian, A. G., &Mossholder, K. W. (2000). On the use of the coefficient of variation as a measure of diversity.Organizational Research Methods,3, 285–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cohen, J. (1988).Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  5. Cohen, J. (1994). The earth is round (p<.05).American Psychologist,49, 997–1003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dinges, D. F., &Kribbs, N. B. (1991). Performance while sleepy: Effects of experimentally-induced sleepiness. In T. H. Monk (Ed.),Sleep, sleepiness, and performance (pp. 97–128). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  7. Efron, B., &Tibshirani, R. J. (1993).An introduction to the bootstrap. New York: Chapman & Hall/CRC.Google Scholar
  8. Frith, U., &Frith, C. (2001). The biological basis of social interaction.Current Directions in Psychological Science,10, 151–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Guenther, W. C. (1981). Sample size formulas for normal theory T tests.American Statistician,35, 243–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hahn, G., &Meeker, W. (1991).Statistical intervals: A guide for practitioners. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  11. Haldane, J. B. S. (1955). The measurement of variation.Evolution,9, 484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hayashi, R. (2000). Correlation between coefficient of variation of choice reaction time and components of event-related potentials (P300): Effect of benzodiazepine.Journal of the Neurological Sciences,178, 52–56.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Hunter, J. E., &Schmidt, F. L. (2004).Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  14. Johnson, N. L., Kotz, S., &Balakrishnan, N. (1995).Continuous univariate distributions (2nd ed., Vol. 2). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  15. Johnson, N. L., &Welch, B. L. (1940). Applications of the noncentral t distribution.Biometrika,31, 362–389.Google Scholar
  16. Kelley, K. (2007a). Confidence intervals for standardized effect sizes: Theory, application, and implementation.Journal of Statistical Software,20, 1–24.Google Scholar
  17. Kelley, K. (2007b). Methods for the Behavioral, Educational, and Social Sciences (MBESS) [Computer software and manual]. Retrievable from www.cran.r-project.org/.Google Scholar
  18. Kelley, K. (2007c). Methods for the behavioral, educational, and social sciences: An R package.Behavior Research Methods,39, 979–984.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Kelley, K. (2007d).Sample size planning for the squared multiple correlation coefficient: Accuracy in parameter estimation via narrow confidence intervals. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  20. Kelley, K., &Maxwell, S. E. (2003). Sample size for multiple regression: Obtaining regression coefficients that are accurate, not simply significant.Psychological Methods,8, 305–321.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Kelley, K., & Maxwell, gnS. E. (in press). Sample size planning for multiple regression: Power and accuracy for omnibus and targeted effects. In J. Brannon, P. Alasuutari, & L. Bickman (Eds.),Sage handbook of social research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  22. Kelley, K., Maxwell, S. E., &Rausch, J. R. (2003). Obtaining power or obtaining precision: Delineating methods of sample size planning.Evaluation & the Health Professions,26, 258–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kelley, K., &Rausch, J. R. (2006). Sample size planning for the standardized mean difference: Accuracy in parameter estimation via narrow confidence intervals.Psychological Methods,11, 363–385.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Kirk, R. (2001). Promoting good statistical practice: Some suggestions.Educational & Psychological Measurement,61, 213–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kosslyn, S. M., Cacioppo, J. T., Davidson, R. J., Hugdahl, K., Lovallo, W. R., Spiegel, D., &Rose, R. (2002). Bridging psychology and biology: The analysis of individuals in groups.American Psychologist,57, 341–351.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Kraemer, H. C., &Thiemann, S. (1987).How many subjects?: Statistical power analysis in research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  27. Kupper, L. L., &Hafner, K. B. (1989). How appropriate are popular sample size formulas?The American Statistician,43, 101–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lipsey, M. W. (1990).Design sensitivity: Statistical power for experimental research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  29. Mace, A. E. (1964).Sample size determination. New York: Reinhold.Google Scholar
  30. McKay, A. T. (1932). Distribution of the coefficient of variation and the extended “t” distribution.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society,95, 695–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Meehl, P. E. (1997). The problem is epistemology, not statistics: Replace significance tests by confidence intervals and quantify accuracy of risky numerical predictions. In L. L. Harlow, S. A. Mulaik, & J. H. Steiger (Eds.),What if there were no significance tests? (pp. 393–426). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  32. Monchar, P. H. (1981). Regional educational inequality and political instability.Comparative Education Review,25, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Murphy, K. R., &Myors, B. (1998).Statistical power analysis: A simple and general model for traditional and modern hypothesis tests. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  34. Neyman, J. (1937). Outline of a theory of statistical estimation based on the classical theory of probability.Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A,236, 333–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. R Development Core Team (2007). R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Computer software and manual], R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from www.r-project.org.Google Scholar
  36. Reed, G. F., Lynn, F., &Meade, B. D. (2002). Use of coefficient of variation in assessing variability of quantitative assays.Clinical & Diagnostic Laboratory Immunology,9, 1235–1239.Google Scholar
  37. Rozeboom, W. W. (1966).Foundations of the theory of prediction. Homewood, IL: Dorsey.Google Scholar
  38. Salmon, P., &Hall, G. M. (1997). A theory of postoperative fatigue: An interaction of biological, psychological, and social processes.Pharmacology Biochemistry & Behavior,56, 623–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schmidt, F. L. (1996). Statistical significance testing and cumulative knowledge in psychology: Implications for training of researchers.Psychological Methods,1, 115–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Shafir, S. (2000). Risk-sensitivity foraging: The effect of relative variability.Oikos,88, 663–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sheret, M. (1984). Note on methodology: The coefficient of variation.Comparative Education Review,28, 467–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Smithson, M. (2001). Correct confidence intervals for various regression effect sizes and parameters: The importance of noncentral distributions in computing intervals.Educational & Psychological Measurement,61, 605–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sokal, R. R., &Braumann, C. A. (1980). Significance tests for coefficients of variation and variability profiles.Systematic Zoology,29, 50–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Steiger, J. H. (2004). Beyond theF test: Effect size confidence intervals and tests of close fit in the analysis of variance and contrast analysis.Psychological Methods,9, 164–182.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Steiger, J. H., &Fouladi, R. T. (1997). Noncentrality interval estimation and the evaluation of statistical methods. In L. L. Harlow, S. A. Mulaik, & J. H. Steiger (Eds.),What if there were no significance tests? (pp. 221–257). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  46. Task Force on Reporting of Research Methods in AERA Publications (2006).Standards for reporting on empirical social science research in aera publications. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
  47. Thompson, B. (2002). What future quantitative social science research could look like: Confidence intervals for effect sizes.Educational Researcher,31, 25–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Velleman, P. F., &Wilkinson, L. (1993). Nominal, ordinal, interval, and ratio typologies are misleading.American Statistician,47, 65–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Volkow, N. D., Zhu, W., Felder, C. A., Mueller, K., Welsh, T. F., Wang, G.-J., &de Leon, M. J. (2002). Changes in brain functional homogeneity in subjects with Alzheimer’s disease.Psychiatry Research: Neuroimaging,114, 39–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Weber, E. U., Shafir, S., &Blais, A.-R. (2004). Predicting risk sensitivity in humans and lower animals: Risk as variance or coefficient of variation.Psychological Review,111, 430–445.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Wilkinson, L., &The American Psychological Association Task Force on Statistical Inference (1999). Statistical methods in psychology: Guidelines and explanations.American Psychologist,54, 594–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Williams, K. Y., &O’Reilly, C. A., III (1998). Demography and diversity in organizations: A review of 40 years of research.Research in Organizational Behavior,20, 77–140.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Inquiry Methodology ProgramIndiana UniversityBloomington

Personalised recommendations