Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 6, 2026

Development of an Individual-Tree Basal Area Increment Model using a Linear Mixed-Effects Approach
Published on: July 3, 2020
Robust power and sample size calculations in quasi-likelihood models: methods and practice
Shijie Yuan1, Amy Cochran2, Paul Rathouz3
1Department of Statistics and Data Sciences, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, 78712, TX, USA. sj.yuan@austin.utexas.edu.
Background:
Accurate power and sample size calculations are essential in study planning, yet they are often difficult to carry out for quasi-likelihood (QL) models. Traditional power and sample size (PSS) approaches often rely on restrictive distributional assumptions, limiting their applicability when responses have non-standard distributions, variance functions are misspecified, or when covariates exhibit complex dependence structures.
Methods:
We examine whether two effect size measures-2 Standard Deviations in the Linear Predictor (2SLiP) and Pseudo-Partial [Formula: see text] (P2R2)-originally developed for Wald tests involving generalized linear models, are effective at power and sample size calculations in the QL framework. Through extensive simulations across diverse outcome types, link functions, and variance structures, we assess their performance under Wald tests and explore whether they remain useful for score tests. To illustrate practical utility, we apply these effect size measures to survey data on frontline health care workers to quantify the association between perceived personal protective equipment (PPE) adequacy and burnout risk during the COVID-19 pandemic, adjusting for covariates.
Results:
We show that the two generalized linear model (GLM)-based effect sizes are fundamentally moment-based objects, and therefore extend directly to QL models. Across all simulation settings, both measures remained accurate, with sample size and power estimates within 3% and 2% of the target, respectively. In the case study, the estimated effect sizes for perceived PPE adequacy (2SLiP = 0.096 and P2R2 = 0.020) correspond to small but meaningful associations with burnout risk after adjustment for demographic and occupational covariates; both yielded accurate recommendations for sample size.
Conclusions:
Both 2SLiP and P2R2 offer robust alternatives for power and sample size calculation in QL settings. By requiring minimal distributional assumptions, these measures enhance the flexibility and reliability of power and sample size calculations for realistic study designs commonly encountered in medical and public health research.
Related Concept Videos
Parametric Survival Analysis: Weibull and Exponential Methods
Weibull Distribution
The Weibull distribution is a flexible model used in parametric survival analysis. It can handle both increasing and decreasing hazard rates, depending on its shape parameter...
Statistical Inference Techniques in Hypothesis Testing: Parametric Versus Nonparametric Data
Parametric statistics, as the name suggests, assumes that data follow a specific distribution, often a normal distribution. This assumption enables robust hypothesis testing and estimation. Parametric methods, like the Student's t-test or Goodness-of-fit test, are frequently employed in biostatistics due to their robustness. For instance, comparing...
Testing a Claim about Population Proportion
There are two methods of testing a claim about a population proportion: (1) Using the sample proportion from the data where a binomial distribution is approximated to the normal distribution and (2) Using the binomial probabilities calculated from the data.
The first method uses normal distribution as an approximation to the binomial distribution. The requirements are as follows: sample size is large...
Distributions to Estimate Population Parameter
Statistical Hypothesis Testing
Statistical significance measures the probability that an observed result occurred by chance. If this probability, known as...
Statistical Methods for Analyzing Epidemiological Data

