Cited by 335Optimal Experimental Design MethodsStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsAdvanced Causal Inference Techniques

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 27 of the 27 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Factorial Experiments

Open access
Collins, Linda M., Dziak, John J., Kugler, Kari C., Trail, Jessica B.·2014·American Journal of Preventive Medicine

Abstract

Background An understanding of the individual and combined effects of a set of intervention components is important for moving the science of preventive medicine interventions forward. This understanding can often be achieved in an efficient and economical way via a factorial experiment, in which two or more independent variables are manipulated. The factorial experiment is a complement to the RCT; the two designs address different research questions.Purpose To offer an introduction to factorial experiments aimed at investigators trained primarily in the RCT.Methods The factorial experiment is compared and contrasted with other experimental designs used commonly in intervention science to highlight where each is most efficient and appropriate.Results Several points are made: factorial experiments make very efficient use of experimental subjects when the data are properly analyzed; a factorial experiment can have excellent statistical power even if it has relatively few subjects per experimental condition; and when conducting research to select components for inclusion in a multicomponent intervention, interactions should be studied rather than avoided.Conclusions Investigators in preventive medicine and related areas should begin considering factorial experiments alongside other approaches. Experimental designs should be chosen from a resource management perspective, which states that the best experimental design is the one that provides the greatest scientific benefit without exceeding available resources.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.amepre.2014.06.021

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 27 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–300 of 334

Metadata

Authors
Collins, L. M., Dziak, J. J., Kugler, K. C., & Trail, J. B.
Affiliations
Pennsylvania State University (US)
Corresponding author
Collins, Linda M.
Venue
American Journal of Preventive Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-10
Volume
47
Issue
4
Pages
498-504
ISSN
0749-3797 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W106021680
Cited by
335
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 29 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 33 · 2023: 35 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 36 · 2020: 53 · 2019: 31 · 2018: 26 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 10
FWCI
17.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Journal of Preventive Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (P50DA010075)
  • National Cancer Institute (P50CA143188)
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (KL2TR000126)
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (R01DK097364)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Optimal Experimental Design Methods
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
Keywords
factorial design, multicomponent intervention, intervention components, interaction effects, statistical power, resource management, experimental design, randomized controlled trials
MeSH terms
Humans, Preventive Health Services, Preventive Medicine, Research Design, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review