Search

The expected value of the standard power function of a test, computed with respect to a design prior distribution, is often used to evaluate the probability of success of an experiment. However, looking only at the expected value might be reductive. Instead, the whole probability distribution of the power function induced by the design prior can be exploited. In this article we consider one‐sided testing for the scale parameter of exponential families and we derive general unifying expressions for cumulative distribution and density functions of the random power. Sample size determination criteria based on alternative summaries of these functions are discussed. The study sheds light on the relevance of the choice of the design prior in order to construct a successful experiment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many sample size criteria exist. These include power calculations and methods based on confidence interval widths from a frequentist viewpoint, and Bayesian methods based on credible interval widths or decision theory. Bayesian methods account for the inherent uncertainty of inputs to sample size calculations through the use of prior information rather than the point estimates typically used by frequentist methods. However, the choice of prior density can be problematic because there will almost always be different appreciations of the past evidence. Such differences can be accommodated a priori by robust methods for Bayesian design, for example, using mixtures or ϵ-contaminated priors. This would then ensure that the prior class includes divergent opinions. However, one may prefer to report several posterior densities arising from a "community of priors," which cover the range of plausible prior densities, rather than forming a single class of priors. To date, however, there are no corresponding sample size methods that specifically account for a community of prior densities in the sense of ensuring a large-enough sample size for the data to sufficiently overwhelm the priors to ensure consensus across widely divergent prior views. In this paper, we develop methods that account for the variability in prior opinions by providing the sample size required to induce posterior agreement to a prespecified degree. Prototypic examples to one- and two-sample binomial outcomes are included. We compare sample sizes from criteria that consider a family of priors to those that would result from previous interval-based Bayesian criteria. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]