Determinants of the intracluster correlation coefficient in cluster randomized trials: the case of implementation research
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this research was to identify determinants of the magnitude of intracluster correlation coefficients (ICCs) in cluster randomized trials from the field of implementation research. A survey of experts was conducted to generate a priori hypotheses of factors that might affect ICC size. Hypotheses were tested on empirical estimates of ICCs calculated from 21 implementation research datasets, mainly from the UK. Effects of setting (primary or secondary care), type of variable (process or outcome), type of measurement (objective or subjective), prevalence of outcome and size of cluster were tested. In total, 220 ICCs were available (range 0 to 0.415). Significant differences in ICC magnitude were found. The ICCs were significantly higher for process than for outcome variables, and for secondary care outcomes compared with primary care outcomes. The effects of prevalence and size were less clear cut. There was no evidence to suggest that type of measurement affected ICC size. In conclusion, accurate estimates of ICCs are essential for sample size calculations for cluster randomized trials of professional behaviour change interventions. This study demonstrates that ICCs are sensitive to a number of trial factors, particularly setting and outcome type. These factors must be considered when planning such cluster randomized trials.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.196 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it