A tutorial on sample size calculation for multiple-period cluster randomized parallel, cross-over and stepped-wedge trials using the Shiny CRT Calculator
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It has long been recognized that sample size calculations for cluster randomized trials require consideration of the correlation between multiple observations within the same cluster. When measurements are taken at anything other than a single point in time, these correlations depend not only on the cluster but also on the time separation between measurements and additionally, on whether different participants (cross-sectional designs) or the same participants (cohort designs) are repeatedly measured. This is particularly relevant in trials with multiple periods of measurement, such as the cluster cross-over and stepped-wedge designs, but also to some degree in parallel designs. Several papers describing sample size methodology for these designs have been published, but this methodology might not be accessible to all researchers. In this article we provide a tutorial on sample size calculation for cluster randomized designs with particular emphasis on designs with multiple periods of measurement and provide a web-based tool, the Shiny CRT Calculator, to allow researchers to easily conduct these sample size calculations. We consider both cross-sectional and cohort designs and allow for a variety of assumed within-cluster correlation structures. We consider cluster heterogeneity in treatment effects (for designs where treatment is crossed with cluster), as well as individually randomized group-treatment trials with differential clustering between arms, for example designs where clustering arises from interventions being delivered in groups. The calculator will compute power or precision, as a function of cluster size or number of clusters, for a wide variety of designs and correlation structures. We illustrate the methodology and the flexibility of the Shiny CRT Calculator using a range of examples.
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 | 0.028 | 0.148 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.122 | 0.038 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".