Efficient crossover designs in the presence of interactions between direct and carry-over treatment effects

ADHD and the Choice of Small Immediate Over Larger Delayed Rewards: A Comparative Meta-Analysis of Performance on Simple Choice-Delay and Temporal Discounting Paradigms

“…The latter limitations are problematic as they affect estimates of performance variance, which themselves affect experimental effect calculations (Borenstein, Hedges, Higgins, & Rothstein, 2009; Dunlap, Cortina, Vaslow, & Burke, 1996). For instance, in repeated measures designs, even if the task order is randomized or counterbalanced to minimize carryover effects (Park, Bose, Notz, & Dean, 2011), the total time on task is increased when compared with nonrepeated measures designs. This might have different implications for task performance in the involved experimental groups.…”

Generation of all Possible Cycle Shifts in Crossover Design

“…Later that, generalized cyclic designs have authorised more variability. Specially, when small block size and small number of replicates of a large number of treatment are required.A lower bound for the A-efficiency of the designs for estimating the direct effects is derived by Park et al (2011). Wellek and Blettner (2012) introduced multiple summary measures multiple summary measures instead of using one single summary measureat the same time through LMMs by using their correlation.…”

Development of Research in Experimental Design in India

“…Bose & Stufken (2007) dwelt on the issue of optimality when carryover effects are proportional to direct effects. Park et al (2011) studied efficient designs when the model includes not only the direct and carryover effects but also interactions between them. This work and also some previous ones, notably Sen & Mukerjee (1987), Bose (1998) and Bose & Mukherjee (2000), exploit a connection between crossover and factorial designs and borrow tools from the latter.…”