Tags

  • Published on

    Categorical measurement caveats

    Effects of categorical measurement

    Decrease statistical power and increase sample size

    Categorical variables are very prevalent in medicine. Measures like presence of comorbidities, mortality, and test results are categorical in nature. Here are some general caveats associated with categorical measurement and sample size:  

    1. Categorical outcomes will always DECREASE statistical power and INCREASE the needed sample size. This is due to the lack of precision and accuracy in categorical measurement.

    2. The underlying algebra associated with calculating 95% confidence intervals of odds ratios and relative risk is 100% dependent upon the sample size. With smaller sample sizes, by default, wider and less precise 95% confidence intervals will be found. If one of the cells of a cross-tabulation table has fewer observations that the other cells, then the 95% confidence interval will be wider and potentially not truly interpretable. A 95% confidence interval will become narrower or more precise only with larger sample sizes.  

    3. When using categorical variables for diagnostic testing purposes, larger samples sizes will be needed to calculate precise measures of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV). With smaller sample sizes in diagnostic studies, a change in one or two observations can have drastic effects on the diagnostic values.

    This is especially true when there is a subjective rating used for purposes of diagnosing someone as "positive" or "negative" for a given disease state (radiologist reading an X-ray). Inter-rater reliability coefficients such as Kappa or ICC should be employed to ensure consistency and reliability among subsequent ratings and raters. Sensitivity, specificity, and PPV will be affected by inter-rater reliability. Receiver Operator Characteristic (ROC) curves can be used to find a given value where sensitivity and specificity of a test is maximized. ROC curves can also be used to compare the area under the curve (AUC) between several diagnostic tests at the same time so that the best can be chosen.  

    4. For each predictor categorical parameter (or variable) that you want to include in a multivariate model, you have to increase your sample size by at least 20-40 observations of the outcome. This due to the limited precision, accuracy, and statistical power associated with categorical measurement. Researchers HAVE to collect more observations in order to detect any potential significant multivariate associations.  

    In the case that a polychotomous variable is to be used in a model, create (a-1), where a is the number of categories, dichotomous variables with "0" as not being that category and "1" as being that category. For each level, 20-40 more observations of the outcome will be needed to have enough statistical power to detect differences amongst the multiple groups.        
  • Published on

    Positive Predictive Value and Prevalence

    Positive Predictive Value (PPV) and Prevalence

    Increased prevalence of an outcome will lead to more cases being "picked up"

    Positive predictive value (PPV) is the likelihood that a person with a "+" on a diagnostic test actually has the disease state as it is detected using a "gold standard." Another way of defining PPV is how believable a "+" test result is in a given population.
     
    As the prevalence of a disease state in a given population increases, the positive predictive value of a test will increase. This is simply due to the fact that there are more cases or disease states that can be detected.

    If you are working with a rare outcome in a given population, be aware that less prevalent outcomes increase the number of false positives detected by a diagnostic test. By definition, lower prevalence dictates that there are not many true positives or "sick" people in a given population. With so few actual cases and more people being tested, the inherent measurement error associated with diagnostic testing will yield more and more false positives.    

    So, in conclusion, it is very important to know the baseline prevalence of your outcome or disease state in your population of interest when assessing diagnostic tests. Higher prevalence leads to increased PPV and lower prevalence leads to increased false positives.