Related Experiment Video
Updated: Nov 10, 2025

Author Spotlight: Evaluating the Adjuvant Efficacy and Safety of Angong Niuhuang Pill in Viral Encephalitis Treatment
Published on: April 19, 2024
Type I error control for cluster randomized trials under varying small sample structures
Joshua R Nugent1, Ken P Kleinman2
1Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, School of Public Health and Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts Amherst, 715 North Pleasant Street, Amherst, 01003, Massachusetts, USA.
Background:
Linear mixed models (LMM) are a common approach to analyzing data from cluster randomized trials (CRTs). Inference on parameters can be performed via Wald tests or likelihood ratio tests (LRT), but both approaches may give incorrect Type I error rates in common finite sample settings. The impact of different combinations of cluster size, number of clusters, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and analysis approach on Type I error rates has not been well studied. Reviews of published CRTs find that small sample sizes are not uncommon, so the performance of different inferential approaches in these settings can guide data analysts to the best choices.
Methods:
Using a random-intercept LMM stucture, we use simulations to study Type I error rates with the LRT and Wald test with different degrees of freedom (DF) choices across different combinations of cluster size, number of clusters, and ICC.
Results:
Our simulations show that the LRT can be anti-conservative when the ICC is large and the number of clusters is small, with the effect most pronouced when the cluster size is relatively large. Wald tests with the between-within DF method or the Satterthwaite DF approximation maintain Type I error control at the stated level, though they are conservative when the number of clusters, the cluster size, and the ICC are small.
Conclusions:
Depending on the structure of the CRT, analysts should choose a hypothesis testing approach that will maintain the appropriate Type I error rate for their data. Wald tests with the Satterthwaite DF approximation work well in many circumstances, but in other cases the LRT may have Type I error rates closer to the nominal level.
More Related Videos
12:18A Machine Learning Approach to Design an Efficient Selective Screening of Mild Cognitive Impairment
Published on: January 11, 2020
04:53A Clinical Trial Assessing the Safety, Efficacy, and Delivery of Olive-Oil-Based Three-Chamber Bags for Parenteral Nutrition
Published on: September 20, 2019
Related Concept Videos
Accuracy and Errors in Hypothesis Testing
In hypothesis testing, the probability of making a Type I error, denoted as α, is commonly set at 0.05. This significance level indicates a 5%...
Errors In Hypothesis Tests
Randomized Experiments
Simple randomization
Simple...
Cluster Sampling Method
To choose a cluster sample, divide the population into clusters (groups) and then randomly select some of the clusters. All the members from these clusters are in the cluster sample. For example, if you randomly sample four departments from your...
Bonferroni Test
The means of different samples are first paired in all possible combinations.
The null hypothesis of the...
Sampling Plans
Random sampling is a method where each member of the population has an equal chance of being selected for the sample. It involves selecting individuals randomly, often using random number generators or lottery-type methods. For example, when analyzing the properties of a...