ANCOVA versus change from baseline had more power in randomized studies and more bias in nonrandomized studies

By G. V. van Breukelen. 2006

688 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/8ff6e233e574b78b679374e767c4441d942e621f

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Statistics and Probability

1. Lisa Conboy
2. Sara W. Lazar
3. T. Gard
4. Narayan Brach
5. Britta K. Hölzel
6. J. J. Noggle

Citations in the corpus

• Effects of a yoga-based intervention for young adults on quality of life and perceived stress: The potential mediating roles of mindfulness and self-compassion (2012, positive): “There is no consensus on which method is preferable for quasi-experimental designs, with arguments in favor of an ANCOVA (Van Breukelen, 2006) and against it (Dimitrov & Rumrill Jr, 2003).”
• Improvisation facilitates divergent thinking and creativity: Realizing a benefit of primary school arts education (2015, background): “…both pre and post intervention scores, shows that analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) estimates are unbiased, more powerful and more precise than repeated-measures ANOVA or change score analysis, especially when there is an initial baseline imbalance (Egbewale, Lewis & Sim, 2014; van Breukelen, 2006).”