# Experimental Design for Equivalence Testing

I'm working on setting up a study that will test how quickly users click on various icons appearing on a computer screen using three different prototype mouse types. Subjects will visit on three three days and perform the test twice each visit (two recorded time measurements per visit).

I want to show there is no difference in time within subjects and between mouse devices via equivalence testing.

Let's say I have 135 subjects. I could assign 45 subjects to a specific mouse device and only have them use that particular device each visit. Or I could assign them a different mouse device each visit.

Which design would be better? I believe it depends on the variability between mouse devices. Also, how would I analyze the equivalence testing in one model that takes into account the user effect and mouse device effect?

• These numbers are quite low for equivalence testing. I suggest you prepare in advance two sets of methods - one based on equivalence and one on significance (with indifference region), which should suffice. Oct 21, 2021 at 21:33
• @Spätzle Could you expand on significance with indifference region? I updated the question to 135 subjects as I want the question to focus on study design and analysis, not sample size.
– Glen
Oct 21, 2021 at 22:33
• I would recommend using uniformly most powerful tests for equivalence, a la Wellek's textbook: definitely more powerful than TOST. Nov 10, 2021 at 0:30
• @Alexis do you have an online reference?
– Glen
Nov 10, 2021 at 13:31
• @Glen Wellek's is the only textbook I have seen, and it pulls not only from his experience, but from a widely distributed literature. I found it digitally accessible from my local public library, and from my university library, which also had a print copy if I recall correctly. However, you might also try Inter-Library Loan if your local library participates in that exchange (which, during COVID-19 realities, may or may not be happening for physical volumes). Nov 10, 2021 at 16:17

"Usual" significance testing uses null hypothesis $$H_0:|\mu_A-\mu_B|=0$$. That is, we assume no effect exists. The "acceptance region" (AR, the region in which we do not reject the null) size shrinks as sample size grows. This leads to a super sensitive test, which will reject the null for tiny differences in large sample size.

Using indifference region is a somewhat more "realistic" approach: we acknowledge the possibility that some effect with exist, but we decide to ignore it up to a point, say we ignore effects smaller than $$\epsilon$$. A relevant null hypothesis would be $$H_0:|\mu_A-\mu_B|<\epsilon$$. It does help us achieve a more stable approach (in terms of false rejection of the null), but a large enough sample size would eventually lead to rejecting the null. See Section 4.3 of Bickel & Doksum for more details. Do note that the ignorable effect size should be determined before you conduct the test itself - it should be based on results of previous experiments, known measuring error, relevant literature and so on.

Equivalence testing is "flipping" the direction of the hypotheses, i.e $$H_0:|\mu_A-\mu_b|\ge\epsilon$$. the result is an AR which grows with sample size (up to a bound). The so called "problem" is that it requires a large enough sample size in order to have a large enough AR. Note that for ET, "acceptance" means that we do reject the relevant null htpothesis.

For example, consider the following problem: we have $$n$$ measurements of $$X_A\sim N(\mu_A,1),X_B\sim N(\mu_B,1)$$ and we hypothesize the difference of means $$\mu_A-\mu_B$$. The null hypotheses are as follows:

$$H_0^{sig}:|\mu_A-\mu_B|=0,\qquad H_0^{indiff}:|\mu_A-\mu_B|<\epsilon,\qquad H_0^{equiv}:|\mu_A-\mu_B|>\epsilon$$

We take a vector of size 100, $$X\sim N_{100}(0, I)$$ and repeat it $$2^k$$ times. See how the AR size changes:

(This plot is taken from the background section of my MA thesis).

For your case, I believe that ET wouldn't be very helpful as the sample size isn't that large. Try using indifference region and see how it goes.