Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2023 Dec 4.
Published in final edited form as: Biometrics. 2022 Aug 2;79(3):2116–2126. doi: 10.1111/biom.13711

TABLE 1.

Randomized study results under Model 1 scheme 1, with π=0.5,α=0.05,n=1000

c Method μIPW μAIPW σIPW σAIPW 1βIPW/αIPW 1βAIPW/αAIPW
0.30 SAP-match 1.61 2.50 1.01 1.01 0.51 0.80
0.30 SBT 0.62 2.55 1.00 0.99 0.15 0.81
0.40 SAP-match 2.29 3.39 1.01 1.00 0.73 0.96
0.40 SBT 0.92 3.44 1.00 1.01 0.21 0.97
0.50 SAP-match 2.92 4.40 0.94 1.02 0.92 1.00
0.50 SBT 1.17 4.43 1.00 1.01 0.30 1.00
0.00 SAP-match 0.03 −0.03 1.00 0.99 0.04 0.05
0.00 SBT −0.03 0.02 1.01 1.00 0.06 0.06
−1.00 SAP-match 0.02 −0.06 0.99 1.00 0.04 0.05
−1.00 SBT −0.05 −0.07 1.02 1.04 0.06 0.05
−2.00 SAP-match 0.03 −0.03 0.98 0.99 0.05 0.05
−2.00 SBT −0.04 −0.00 1.02 1.03 0.06 0.06

Note:Mean (μ), standard deviation (σ), and power or type I error (1β/α) of the one-step value difference test statistic based on 500 simulated data sets. Subscripts “IPW” and “AIPW” correspond to TIPW, and TAIPW,, respectively. “Method” refers to chunking method. Largest standard error for μ, σ, and 1β/α is 0.05, 0.07, and 0.02, respectively.