Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 1994 Aug;47(8):873-80.
doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(94)90190-2.

The effect of exposure variance and exposure measurement error on study sample size: implications for the design of epidemiologic studies

E White  1 , L H Kushi, M S Pepe
Affiliations
Review

The effect of exposure variance and exposure measurement error on study sample size: implications for the design of epidemiologic studies

E White et al. J Clin Epidemiol. 1994 Aug.

Abstract

A small variability of exposure in a population, for example small variance in nutrient intake, limits the power of an epidemiologic study. McKeown-Eyssen and Thomas (J Chron Dis 1985; 38:559-568) have shown that by selecting a population with larger exposure variance vs one with smaller variance, the study sample size can be reduced by a factor equal to the ratio of the smaller to larger variance. The authors show that this benefit may be even greater for exposures measured with error. When there is measurement error, the sample size requirements are greatly increased. However, the proportional reduction in sample size from selecting a population with larger variance may be even greater when there is error than when there is not. Under certain assumptions, the validity of the exposure (correlation coefficient of the mismeasured exposure with the true exposure) is enhanced in the population with larger exposure variance, which provides the additional sample size benefit. Simple equations are presented that demonstrate quantitatively the substantial benefit of selecting a population with larger exposure variance when there is moderate or large measurement error. For example, selecting a population with a 30% greater standard deviation of exposure could reduce sample size requirements by 41% when the exposure is perfectly measured, but when the exposure is poorly measured with a validity coefficient of 0.6, the savings could be 56% if a population with 30% greater standard deviation of exposure could be studied. Applications of these results as well as the limitations of the assumptions are discussed.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources