On design considerations and randomization-based inference for community intervention trials.

By M. Gail, S. Mark, Raymond J. Carroll, S. Green, D. Pee. 1996

How researchers see this paper

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

Citations in the corpus

Design and analysis of stepped wedge cluster randomized trials. (2007, background): “[7]), or to minimize contamination ([8]), or for other logistic, financial or ethical reasons.”
Optimal Permutation Tests for the Analysis of Group Randomized Trials (2001, methodology): “Although Gail et al. (1996) and Brookmeyer and Chen (1988) empirically examined the power of permutation tests, there is no comprehensive theoretic development of ef cient permutation tests for correlated data regression settings like GRT’s.”
Randomization Tests for Weak Null Hypotheses in Randomized Experiments (2018, background): “Gail et al. (1996) and Lin et al. (2017) gave empirical evidence from simulations, and Ding and Dasgupta (2018) gave a theoretical analysis of the one-way layout.”
Randomization Inference in a Group–Randomized Trial of Treatments for Depression (2008, methodology): “Like Gail et al. (1996) and Braun and Feng (2001), we test no treatment effect, H0 : rT = rC , using (1.1).”
Strategies for Improving Precision in Group-Randomized Experiments (2007, methodology): “Within the past 15 years, a number of authors have compared the power of the CR design with that of the MP design in the context of group-randomized studies (Freedman, Green, & Byar, 1990; Gail, Mark, Carroll, Green, & Pee, 1996; Martin et al., 1993).”
The essential role of pair matching in cluster-randomized experiments, with application to the Mexican Universal Health Insurance Evaluation (2009, methodology): “The existing applications include Gail et al. (1996) and Braun and Feng (2001), which combine permutation inference with parametric modeling, and Small, Ten Have and Rosenbaum (2008) which considers quantile effects using different and more modest assumptions.”
The Effects of High Stakes High School Achievement Awards: Evidence from a Randomized Trial (2009, unknown): “Treatment was assigned randomly within pairs, the most common matching strategy in GRTs (see, e.g., Mitchell H. Gail et al. 1996).”
The Effects of High Stakes High School Achievement Awards: Evidence from a Randomized Trial (2009, unknown): “Treatment was assigned randomly within pairs, the most common matching strategy in GRTs (see, e.g., Mitchell H. Gail, et al., 1996).”