Linda M Collins1, John J Dziak2, Kari C Kugler2, Jessica B Trail3. 1. Department of Human Development and Family Studies; The Methodology Center. Electronic address: lmcollins@psu.edu. 2. The Methodology Center. 3. The Methodology Center; Department of Statistics, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: An understanding of the individual and combined effects of a set of intervention components is important for moving the science of preventive medicine interventions forward. This understanding can often be achieved in an efficient and economical way via a factorial experiment, in which two or more independent variables are manipulated. The factorial experiment is a complement to the RCT; the two designs address different research questions. PURPOSE: To offer an introduction to factorial experiments aimed at investigators trained primarily in the RCT. METHODS: The factorial experiment is compared and contrasted with other experimental designs used commonly in intervention science to highlight where each is most efficient and appropriate. RESULTS: Several points are made: factorial experiments make very efficient use of experimental subjects when the data are properly analyzed; a factorial experiment can have excellent statistical power even if it has relatively few subjects per experimental condition; and when conducting research to select components for inclusion in a multicomponent intervention, interactions should be studied rather than avoided. CONCLUSIONS: Investigators in preventive medicine and related areas should begin considering factorial experiments alongside other approaches. Experimental designs should be chosen from a resource management perspective, which states that the best experimental design is the one that provides the greatest scientific benefit without exceeding available resources.
BACKGROUND: An understanding of the individual and combined effects of a set of intervention components is important for moving the science of preventive medicine interventions forward. This understanding can often be achieved in an efficient and economical way via a factorial experiment, in which two or more independent variables are manipulated. The factorial experiment is a complement to the RCT; the two designs address different research questions. PURPOSE: To offer an introduction to factorial experiments aimed at investigators trained primarily in the RCT. METHODS: The factorial experiment is compared and contrasted with other experimental designs used commonly in intervention science to highlight where each is most efficient and appropriate. RESULTS: Several points are made: factorial experiments make very efficient use of experimental subjects when the data are properly analyzed; a factorial experiment can have excellent statistical power even if it has relatively few subjects per experimental condition; and when conducting research to select components for inclusion in a multicomponent intervention, interactions should be studied rather than avoided. CONCLUSIONS: Investigators in preventive medicine and related areas should begin considering factorial experiments alongside other approaches. Experimental designs should be chosen from a resource management perspective, which states that the best experimental design is the one that provides the greatest scientific benefit without exceeding available resources.
Authors: L J Gray; N Cooper; A Dunkley; F C Warren; R Ara; K Abrams; M J Davies; K Khunti; A Sutton Journal: Obes Rev Date: 2012-01-30 Impact factor: 9.213
Authors: J B McClure; H Derry; K R Riggs; E W Westbrook; J St John; S M Shortreed; A Bogart; L C An Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2012-07-04 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Victor J Strecher; Jennifer B McClure; Gwen L Alexander; Bibhas Chakraborty; Vijay N Nair; Janine M Konkel; Sarah M Greene; Linda M Collins; Carola C Carlier; Cheryl J Wiese; Roderick J Little; Cynthia S Pomerleau; Ovide F Pomerleau Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2008-05 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Linda L Caldwell; Edward A Smith; Linda M Collins; John W Graham; Mary Lai; Lisa Wegner; Tania Vergnani; Catherine Matthews; Joachim Jacobs Journal: Child Youth Care Forum Date: 2012-04-01
Authors: Erin S Leblanc; Elizabeth O'Connor; Evelyn P Whitlock; Carrie D Patnode; Tanya Kapka Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2011-10-04 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Linda M Collins; Timothy B Baker; Robin J Mermelstein; Megan E Piper; Douglas E Jorenby; Stevens S Smith; Bruce A Christiansen; Tanya R Schlam; Jessica W Cook; Michael C Fiore Journal: Ann Behav Med Date: 2011-04
Authors: Megan E Piper; Jessica W Cook; Tanya R Schlam; Douglas E Jorenby; Stevens S Smith; Linda M Collins; Robin Mermelstein; David Fraser; Michael C Fiore; Timothy B Baker Journal: Ann Behav Med Date: 2018-09-13
Authors: Joseph E Glass; James R McKay; David H Gustafson; Rachel Kornfield; Paul J Rathouz; Fiona M McTavish; Amy K Atwood; Andrew Isham; Andrew Quanbeck; Dhavan Shah Journal: J Subst Abuse Treat Date: 2017-03-30
Authors: John A Gallis; Gary G Bennett; Dori M Steinberg; Sandy Askew; Elizabeth L Turner Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2019-11-25 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Predrag Klasnja; Eric B Hekler; Elizabeth V Korinek; John Harlow; Sonali R Mishra Journal: Proc SIGCHI Conf Hum Factor Comput Syst Date: 2017-05