6
$\begingroup$

I have a data set with repeated measurements on subjects. The total sample size is $n=118$ and the number of clusters (i.e. subjects) is $m=49$. The smallest cluster is of size 2 and the largest cluster is of size 4. In fact, about 60% of the clusters are of size 2, i.e. only two observations per subject. The outcome variable is continuous and there are 5 covariates of interest.

My plan is to fit a linear mixed model (LMM) with a random subject effect, i.e. a random intercept term. If the normality assumption of the residuals should not be satisfied and transformations do not solve the issue, I would then use GEE with identity link (i.e. a marginal model) to model the data since it does not require the normality assumption.

However, before embarking on this adventure, I had some concerns about the asymptotic propoerties of the LMMs and GEEs. I know that for GEE the asymptotic behaviours depends on the number of clusters $m$ (e.g. Li and McKeague, Statistica Sinica, 2013).

Are there any guidelines/recommendations of the number of clusters $m$, the number of observations $n$ and the minimum/maximum cluster size for the two methods?

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

12
$\begingroup$

Recommendations for the number of groups and units per group are good at the study design phase. At this point in your research, you can only hope to produce decent estimates with the data that you have at hand, and that's probably the literature that you should be studying, and questions that you should be asking.

Behavior of the GEEs are asymptotic in $m$, so the more the merrier. I would say that $m=50$ is a moderate sample size (Teerenstra et. al. (2010) give references, behind the paid walls, that in turn say that sample sizes of less than $m=40$ clusters are insufficient); $m=200$ will probably be large enough for approximately symmetric data (not necessarily large enough for low proportions like single digit %, or badly overdispersed count data), while $m=10$ will be too small to really trust asymptotics.

Hox (1998) suggests the number of groups to be $m \ge 50$, and group sizes, $n/m \ge 20$, for asymptotics of the mixed models (which social scientists call multilevel models) to work well. (Think of this recommendation as a modest size educational study: enough classrooms/teachers with 20 students per class.) Maas and Hox (2005) updated these recommendations and studied smaller $m$, down to $m=10$, but they never thought of dropping the number of units in the group anywhere below 5. Some studies with low number of units per group are coming from Bell, Ferron and Kromrey (2008, 2010), although they concentrated on proportion of singletons (groups of size 1) rather than the size per se.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ I agree that these questions should be asked at the study design stage. Unfortunately, as usual, the statistician was only consulted after the data was collected. Thank you for the references. Do you have any references for the GEE results? $\endgroup$
    – Francis
    Commented Jan 8, 2014 at 16:48
  • $\begingroup$ I am less familiar with biostat literature. I updated with just one reference for what I found with a moderate amount of googling. $\endgroup$
    – StasK
    Commented Jan 9, 2014 at 3:34
  • $\begingroup$ is there any R library that can compute the appropriate sample size based on my data? I found "longpower" in CRAN but it is only for linear model and I need to compute it for count data (e.,g., negative bionomial). $\endgroup$
    – Moj
    Commented Jun 6, 2016 at 16:20

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.