Table 2.
Comparison of nMN with nGEE
| (h10, h01) | (p0, p1, ρ) | nMN(1 − γ̂, α̂) | nGEE(1 − γ̂, α̂) |
|---|---|---|---|
| (0.1, 0.30) | (0.15, 0.35, 0.24) | 77(0.829, 0.053) | 79(0.836, 0.044) |
| (0.25, 0.45, −0.01) | 77(0.823, 0.057) | 76(0.830, 0.052) | |
| (0.35, 0.55, 0.17) | 77(0.826, 0.051) | 75(0.819, 0.053) | |
| (0.45, 0.65, 0.24) | 77(0.827, 0.053) | 75(0.823, 0.052) | |
| (0.55, 0.75, 0.24) | 77(0.835, 0.048) | 76(0.820, 0.055) | |
| (0.1, 0.25) | (0.15, 0.30, 0.03) | 120(0.810, 0.050) | 122(0.821, 0.047) |
| (0.25, 0.40, 0.24) | 120(0.814, 0.051) | 119(0.809, 0.047) | |
| (0.35, 0.50, 0.31) | 120(0.816, 0.051) | 118(0.810, 0.053) | |
| (0.45, 0.60, 0.33) | 120(0.811, 0.049) | 118(0.813, 0.049) | |
| (0.55, 0.70, 0.29) | 120(0.804, 0.048) | 119(0.821, 0.051) | |
| (0.1, 0.20) | (0.15, 0.25, 0.08) | 234(0.810, 0.048) | 236(0.812, 0.049) |
| (0.25, 0.35, 0.30) | 234(0.805, 0.050) | 233(0.807, 0.050) | |
| (0.35, 0.45, 0.39) | 234(0.810, 0.050) | 231(0.811, 0.051) | |
| (0.45, 0.55, 0.41) | 234(0.810, 0.051) | 231(0.808, 0.051) | |
| (0.55, 0.65, 0.39) | 234(0.810, 0.047) | 231(0.803, 0.050) | |
| (0.1, 0.15) | (0.15, 0.20, 0.14) | 783(0.801, 0.051) | 785(0.797, 0.051) |
| (0.25, 0.30, 0.38) | 783(0.807, 0.048) | 782(0.801, 0.052) | |
| (0.35, 0.40, 0.47) | 783(0.807, 0.050) | 780(0.801, 0.052) | |
| (0.45, 0.50, 0.50) | 783(0.806, 0.050) | 780(0.793, 0.050) | |
| (0.55, 0.60, 0.49) | 783(0.798, 0.053) | 780(0.804, 0.051) | |
Here (h10, h01) are design parameters for the McNemar sample size approach, and (p0, p1, ρ) are the corresponding design parameters for the GEE sample size approach. We specify power 1 − γ = 0.8 and type I error α = 0.05. The empirical powers and type I errors are denoted by 1 − γ̂ and α̂, respectively.