Simple pilot procedures for the avoidance of disconnected experimental designs

Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series C: Applied Statistics

Volumn 53, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 133-147

  Godolphin, J D ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SURREY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Analysis of variance; Confounding; Connected design; Estimability; Incidence matrix; Information matrix; Linear contrasts; Pilot procedures; Projection matrix; Rank reducing observation sets; Treatment associates

Indexed keywords

EID: 1342303685     PISSN: 00359254     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1046/j.0035-9254.2003.05054.x     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Baksalary, J. K. and Tabis, Z. (1987) Connectedness of PBIB designs. Can. J. Statist., 15, 147-150.
2. Birkes, D., Dodge, Y. and Seely, Y. (1976) Spanning sets for estimable contrasts in classification models. Ann. Statist., 4, 86-107.
3. Chakrabarti, M. C. (1963) On the C-matrix in design of experiments. J. Ind. Statist. Ass., 1, 8-23.
4. Cochran, W. G., Autrey, K. M. and Cannon, C. Y. (1941) A double change-over design for cattle feeding experiments. J. Dairy Sci., 24, 937-951.
5. Cox, D. R. and Reid, N. (2000) The Theory of the Design of Experiments. Boca Raton: Chapman and Hall.
6. Eccleston, J. A. and Hedayat, A. S. (1974) On the theory of connected designs: characterization and optimality. Ann. Statist., 2, 1238-1255.
7. Eccleston, J. A. and Russell, K. G. (1975) Connectedness and orthogonality in multi-factor designs. Biometrika, 62, 341-345.
8. Godolphin, J. D. and Godolphin, E. J. (2001) On the connectivity of row-column designs. Util. Math., 60, 51-65.
9. Hedayat, A. and Afsarinejad, K. (1978) Repeated measures designs, II. Ann. Statist., 6, 619-628.
10. Heiligers, B. (1991) A note on connectedness of block designs. Metrika, 38, 377-381.
11. John, J. A. and Williams, E. R. (1995) Cyclic and Computer Generated Designs, 2nd edn. Boca Raton: Chapman and Hall.
12. Kageyama, S. (1982) Connectedness of two-associate PBIB designs. J. Statist. Planng Inf., 7, 77-82; addendum, 13 (1986), 131-132.
13. Lewis, S. M. and Russell, K. G. (1998) Crossover designs in the presence of carry-over effects from two factors. Appl. Statist., 47, 379-391.
14. Low, J. L., Lewis, S. M. and Prescott, P. (1999) Assessing robustness of crossover designs to subjects dropping out. Statist. Comput., 9, 219-227.
15. MacEachern, S. N., Notz, W. I., Whittinghill, D. C. and Zhu, Y. (1995) Robustness to the unavailability of data in the linear model, with applications. J. Statist. Planng Inf., 48, 207-213.
16. Mohan, N. R. (1981) A criterion for connectedness in two-associate class PBIB designs. J. Statist. Planng Inf., 5, 211-212.
17. Nair, C. R. (1964) A new class of designs. J. Am. Statist. Ass., 59, 817-833.
18. Park, D. K. and Shah, K. R. (1995) On connectedness of row-column designs. Communs Statist., 24, 87-96.
19. Russell, K. G. (1991) The construction of good change-over designs when there are fewer units than treatments. Biometrika, 78, 305-313.
20. Russell, K. G. and Lewis, S. M. (1997) Efficient cross-over designs allowing a check on the assumption that direct and carry-over effects do not interact. Communs Statist. Theory Meth., 26, 2835-2854.
21. Stewart, F. P. and Bradley, R. A. (1991) Some universally optimal row-column designs with empty nodes. Biometrika, 78, 337-348.
22. Verbyla, A. P., Cullis, B. R., Kenward, M. G. and Welham, S. J. (1999) The analysis of designed experiments and longitudinal data by using smoothing splines (with discussion). Appl. Statist., 48, 269-311.
23. Williams, E. J. (1949) Experimental designs balanced for the estimation of residual effects of treatments. Aust. J. Sci. Res. A, 2, 149-168.