Table 2.

Comparison of theoretical and empirical power with the following design parameters held fixed: c = 2, S = 5 (or I = 10), p = 2, and σ² = 1.

Δ	b	J	K	N=IJK	ρ	φHH	φ0	φ(2)	$\stackrel{\sim }{\phi }$ a	K~U(a, b)	$\stackrel{\sim }{\phi }$ b
0.3	0	10	5	500	0.3	0.640	0.440	0.600	0.579	U(2, 8)	0.565
					0.4	0.700	0.384	0.531	0.532		0.464
			10	1000	0.3	0.900	0.505	0.676	0.675	U(3, 17)	0.642
					0.4	0.937	0.424	0.582	0.582		0.552
	2	12	5	600	0.3	0.699	0.589	0.697	0.696	U(2, 8)	0.653
					0.4	0.761	0.520	0.625	0.626		0.623
			10	1200	0.3	0.937	0.664	0.771	0.770	U(3, 17)	0.738
					0.4	0.964	0.570	0.678	0.682		0.642
0.4	0	10	5	500	0.3	0.871	0.674	0.840	0.850	U(2, 8)	0.802
					0.4	0.912	0.602	0.776	0.775		0.749
			10	1000	0.3	0.991	0.749	0.896	0.901	U(3, 17)	0.879
					0.4	0.996	0.655	0.824	0.838		0.793
	2	12	5	600	0.3	0.911	0.830	0.910	0.911	U(2, 8)	0.893
					0.4	0.945	0.764	0.859	0.850		0.835
			10	1200	0.3	0.996	0.888	0.950	0.952	U(3, 17)	0.922
					0.4	0.999	0.813	0.898	0.884		0.884
Mean						0.885	0.629	0.757	0.756		0.727

^aEmpirical power under a fixed K.

^bEmpirical power under a varying K ~ U(a,b) following a uniform distribution with mean equal to the corresponding fixed K.