Multilevel factorial experiments for developing behavioral interventions: power, sample size, and resource considerations
Open accessAbstract
Factorial experimental designs have many potential advantages for behavioral scientists. For example, such designs may be useful in building more potent interventions by helping investigators to screen several candidate intervention components simultaneously and to decide which are likely to offer greater benefit before evaluating the intervention as a whole. However, sample size and power considerations may challenge investigators attempting to apply such designs, especially when the population of interest is multilevel (e.g., when students are nested within schools, or when employees are nested within organizations). In this article, we examine the feasibility of factorial experimental designs with multiple factors in a multilevel, clustered setting (i.e., of multilevel, multifactor experiments). We conduct Monte Carlo simulations to demonstrate how design elements-such as the number of clusters, the number of lower-level units, and the intraclass correlation-affect power. Our results suggest that multilevel, multifactor experiments are feasible for factor-screening purposes because of the economical properties of complete and fractional factorial experimental designs. We also discuss resources for sample size planning and power estimation for multilevel factorial experiments. These results are discussed from a resource management perspective, in which the goal is to choose a design that maximizes the scientific benefit using the resources available for an investigation.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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.
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?
Experimental approaches for optimisation include full or fractional factorial experiments, sequential multiple-assignment randomised trials, and system identification techniques.
“The experimental approaches used for optimization include full or fractional factorial experiments 38, 39, the sequential multiple-assignment randomized trial (SMART), 40 and system identification techniques 41, 42.”
From Evaluating Digital Health Interventions (2016) · cites this paper as [41]
In the traditional translational pipeline, an implementation study requires that the clinical/preventive intervention has already demonstrated effectiveness.
“Following this pipeline, a prerequisite for conducting an implementation study would be that the clinical/preventive intervention has already demonstrated effectiveness.”
From An Overview of Research and Evaluation Designs for Dissemination and Implementation (2017) · cites this paper as [38]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 79 · Cited by 142
Research works printed but not linked: 7
- Adarves-Yorno I Postmes T Haslam SA 2007 Creative innovation or crazy irrelevance? The contribution of group norms and social identity to creative behavior Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 43 410 416
- Bryk AS Raudenbush SW 1988 Toward a more appropriate conceptualization of research on school effects: A three-level hierarchical linear model American Journal of Education 97 65 108
- Gaudine AP Saks AM 2001 Effects of an absenteeism feedback intervention on employee absence behavior Journal of Organizational Behavior 22 15 29
- Kish L 1965 Survey sampling New York Wiley
- Ma X Klinger DA 2000 Hierarchical linear modelling of student and school effects on academic achievement Canadian Journal of Education 25 41 55
- Raudenbush SW Liu X 2000 Statistical power and optimal design for multisite randomized trials Psychological Methods 5 199 213 10937329
- Singer JD 1998 Using SAS PROC MIXED to fit multilevel models, hierarchical models, and individual growth models Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics 24 323 355
- Authors
- Dziak, J. J., Nahum-Shani, I., & Collins, L. M.
- Affiliations
- Pennsylvania State University (US)
- University of Michigan (US)
- Venue
- Psychological Methods
- Published
- 2012
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 153-175
- ISSN
- 1082-989X (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1463
- PMC
- PMC3351535
- OpenAlex
- W2030651304
- Cited by
- 142
- References
- 79
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 8.89
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Psychological Methods (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute on Drug Abuse (P50 DA10075-14, K05 DA018206)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Optimal Experimental Design Methods
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
- Keywords
- behavioral interventions, statistical power, sample size determination, clustered data, fractional factorial design, intraclass correlation coefficient, resource allocation, Monte Carlo simulation
- MeSH terms
- Data Interpretation, Statistical, Factor Analysis, Statistical, Humans, Monte Carlo Method, Research Design, Cluster Analysis, Sample Size, Behavioral Research, Multilevel Analysis
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