Sequential Testing in Reliability and Validity Studies With Repeated Measurements per Subject
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In medical, health, and sports sciences, researchers desire a device with high reliability and validity. This article focuses on reliability and validity studies with n subjects and m ≥2 repeated measurements per subject. High statistical power can be achieved by increasing n or m, and increasing m is often easier than increasing n in practice unless m is too high to result in systematic bias. The sequential probability ratio test (SPRT) is a useful statistical method which can conclude a null hypothesis H0 or an alternative hypothesis H1 with 50% of the required sample size of a non-sequential test on average. The traditional SPRT requires the likelihood function for each observed random variable, and it can be a practical burden for evaluating the likelihood ratio after each observation of a subject. Instead, m observed random variables per subject can be transformed into a test statistic which has a known sampling distribution under H0 and under H1. This allows us to formulate a SPRT based on a sequence of test statistics. In this article, three types of study are considered: reliabilityof a device, reliability of a device relative to a criterion device, and validity of a device relative to a criterion device. Using SPRT for testing the reliability of a device, for small m, results in an average sample size of about 50% of the fixed sample size for a non-sequential test. For comparing a device to criterion, the average sample size approaches to 60% approximately as m increases. The SPRT tolerates violation of normality assumption for validity study, but it does not for reliability study.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.220 | 0.414 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".