This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.
Hulley SB, Cummings SR, Browner WS, Grady D, Hearst N, Newman TB. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2001. Getting ready to estimate sample size: Hypothesis and underlying principles In: Designing Clinical Research-An epidemiologic approach; pp. 51–63.HulleySBCummingsSRBrownerWSGradyDHearstNNewmanTB51–63Search in Google Scholar
Bacchetti P, Wolf LE, Segal MR and McCulloch CE. Ethics and sample size. Am. J. Epidemiol. 2005;161(2):105-110. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwi01410.1093/aje/kwi014BacchettiPWolfLESegalMRMcCullochCEEthics and sample size. Am20051612105–110http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwi014Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Bonferroni CE. Teoria statistica delle classi e calcolo delle probabilit `a. Pubblicazioni del R Istituto Superiore di Scienze Economiche e Commerciali di Firenze. 1936;8:3-62.BonferroniCETeoria statistica delle classi e calcolo delle probabilit `a193683–62Search in Google Scholar
Miller, RG. Simultaneous statistical inference. 2nd ed. Springer Verlag. 1981, pp. 6-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-8122-8MillerRG19816–8http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-8122-810.1007/978-1-4613-8122-8Search in Google Scholar
Grimnes S and Martinsen ØG. Bioimpedance and Bioelectricity Basics. 2nd edition. Academic Press. 2008.GrimnesSMartinsenØGAcademic Press200810.1016/B978-0-12-374004-5.00010-6Search in Google Scholar
Bland JM and Bland DG. Statistics Notes: One and two sided tests of significance BMJ. 1994;309:248. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.309.6949.248BlandJMBlandDG1994309248http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.309.6949.24810.1136/bmj.309.6949.248Search in Google Scholar
Dowdy S, Wearden S and Chilko D. Statistics for research. 3rd Edition, Wiley-Interscience. 2011.DowdySWeardenSChilkoDWiley-Interscience2011Search in Google Scholar
Schmider E, Ziegler M, Danay E, Beyer L and Bühner M. Is it really robust? Reinvestigating the robustness of ANOVA against violations of the normal distribution assumption. Methodology: Europ. J. Res. Meth. Behav. Social Sci. 2010;6:147-151.SchmiderEZieglerMDanayEBeyerLBühnerM.Is it really robust? Reinvestigating the robustness of ANOVA against violations of the normal distribution assumption. Methodology: Europ20106147–151Search in Google Scholar
Sheskin DJ. Handbook of parametric and nonparametric statistical procedures. CRC Press. 2011.SheskinDJCRC Press2011Search in Google Scholar
Sawilowsky SS, Blair RC and Higgins JJ. An Investigation of the Type I Error and Power Properties of the Rank Transform Procedure in Factorial ANOVA. J. Educ. Stat. 1989;14:255-267. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/116501810.3102/10769986014003255SawilowskySSBlairRCHigginsJJ.An Investigation of the Type I Error and Power Properties of the Rank Transform Procedure in Factorial ANOVA. J198914255–267http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1165018Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Mariscuilo LA and Levin JR. Multivariate statistics in the social sciences: A researcher's guide. Brooks/Cole Pub. Co. (Monterey, California). 1983.MariscuiloLALevinJRMonterey, California1983Search in Google Scholar
Peres-Neto P, Jackson DA and Somers KM. How many principal components? Stopping rules for determining the number of non-trivial axes revisited. Comput. Stat. & Data Anal. 2005;49:974-997. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.csda.2004.06.01510.1016/j.csda.2004.06.015Peres-NetoPJacksonDASomersKMHow many principal components? Stopping rules for determining the number of non-trivial axes revisited200549974–997http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.csda.2004.06.015Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Ryan TP. Modern Regression Methods. 2nd ed. Wiley series in probability and statistics. Wiley. 2008RyanTPWiley200810.1002/9780470382806Search in Google Scholar
Tabachnick BG and Fidell LS. Using multivariate statistics (3. ed.). Pearson. New York. 1996.TabachnickBGFidellLSPearsonNew York1996Search in Google Scholar
Breiman L, Friedman J, Olshen R and Stone C. Classification and Regression Trees. Belmont, California: Wadsworth. Dowdy, Wearden, Chilko. Statistics for Research. Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics. 1984.BreimanLFriedmanJOlshenRStoneC1984Search in Google Scholar
Dreiseitl S and Ohno-Machado L. Logistic regression and artificial neural network classification models: a methodology review. J. Biomed. Inform. 2003;35:352-359. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1532-0464(03)00034-0DreiseitlSOhno-MachadoLLogistic regression and artificial neural network classification models: a methodology review200335352–359http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1532-0464(03)00034-010.1016/S1532-0464(03)00034-0Search in Google Scholar
Kotsiantis SB. Supervised Machine Learning: A Review of Classification Techniques. Informatica. 2007;31:249-268.KotsiantisSBSupervised Machine Learning: A Review of Classification Techniques200731249–268Search in Google Scholar
Rani P, Liu C, Sarkar N and Vanman E. An empirical study of machine learning techniques for affect recognition in human-robot interaction. Pattern Anal Applic. 2006;9:58-69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10044-006-0025-y10.1007/s10044-006-0025-yRaniPLiuCSarkarNVanmanE.An empirical study of machine learning techniques for affect recognition in human-robot interaction2006958–69http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10044-006-0025-yOpen DOISearch in Google Scholar
JCGM 200:2012. International vocabulary of metrology – Basic and general concepts and associated terms (VIM) 3. ed.JCGM2002012Search in Google Scholar
Buderer NM. Statistical methodology: I. Incorporating the prevalence of disease into the sample size calculation for sensitivity and specificity. Acad. Emerg. Med. 1996;3(9):895-900.BudererNMStatistical methodology: I199639895–90010.1111/j.1553-2712.1996.tb03538.x8870764Search in Google Scholar
Malhotra RK and Indrayan A. A simple nomogram for sample size for estimating sensitivity and specificity of medical tests. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2010;58:519-522. http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0301-4738.7169910.4103/0301-4738.7169920952837MalhotraRKIndrayanAA simple nomogram for sample size for estimating sensitivity and specificity of medical tests201058519–522http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0301-4738.71699Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Bland JM and Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;8:307-310. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(86)90837-8BlandJMAltmanDGStatistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement19868307–310http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(86)90837-810.1016/j.ijnurstu.2009.10.001Search in Google Scholar
Zaki R, Bulgiba A, Ismail R and Ismail NA. Statistical Methods Used to Test for Agreement of Medical Instruments Measuring Continuous Variables in Method Comparison Studies: A Systematic Review. PLOS one. 2012;7:e37908. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.003790810.1371/journal.pone.003790822662248ZakiRBulgibaAIsmailRIsmailNAStatistical Methods Used to Test for Agreement of Medical Instruments Measuring Continuous Variables in Method Comparison Studies: A Systematic Review20127e37908http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0037908Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Critchley LAH and Critchley JAJH. A Meta-Analysis of Studies Using Bias and Precision Statistics to Compare Cardiac Output Measurement Techniques. J. Clin. Monitor. Comput. 1999;15:85-91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:100998261138610.1023/A:1009982611386CritchleyLAHCritchleyJAJHA Meta-Analysis of Studies Using Bias and Precision Statistics to Compare Cardiac Output Measurement Techniques19991585–91http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1009982611386Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Bland JM and Altman DG. A Note on the use of the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient in the Evaluation of Agreement between two Methods of Measurement. Comput. Biol. Med. 1990;20:337-340. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0010-4825(90)90013-F10.1016/0010-4825(90)90013-F2257734BlandJMAltmanDGA Note on the use of the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient in the Evaluation of Agreement between two Methods of Measurement199020337–340http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0010-4825(90)90013-FOpen DOISearch in Google Scholar
Lin L. Overview of Agreement Statistics for Medical Devices. J. Biopharm. Stat. 2007;18:126-144. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1054340070166829010.1080/10543400701668290LinLOverview of Agreement Statistics for Medical Devices200718126–144http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1054340070166829018161545Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Arlot S and Celisse A. A survey of cross-validation procedures for model selection. Statistics Surveys. 2010;4:40-79. http://dx.doi.org/10.1214/09-SS05410.1214/09-SS054ArlotSCelisseAA survey of cross-validation procedures for model selection2010440–79http://dx.doi.org/10.1214/09-SS054Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Devroye Luc P and Wagner TJ. Distribution-Free performance Bounds for Potential Function Rules. IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory. 1979;25:601-604. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TIT.1979.105608710.1109/TIT.1979.1056087DevroyeLuc PWagnerTJDistribution-Free performance Bounds for Potential Function Rules197925601–604http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TIT.1979.1056087Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Geisser S. The predictive sample reuse method with applications. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 1975;60:320-328.GeisserSThe predictive sample reuse method with applications197560320–32810.1080/01621459.1975.10479865Search in Google Scholar
De Vet HCW, Terwee CB, Knol DL and Bouter LM. When to use agreement versus reliability measures. J. Clin. Epidem. 2006;59:1033-1039. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.10.01510.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.10.015De VetHCWTerweeCBKnolDLBouterLMWhen to use agreement versus reliability measures2006591033–1039http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.10.01516980142Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Kottner J, Audige L, Brorson S, Donner A, Gajewski BJ, Hróbjartsson A, Roberts C, Shoukri M and Streiner DL. Guidelines for Reporting Reliability and Agreement Studies (GRRAS) were proposed. Int. J. Nursing Studies 2011;48:661-671. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2011.01.01610.1016/j.ijnurstu.2011.01.016KottnerJAudigeLBrorsonSDonnerAGajewskiBJHróbjartssonARobertsCShoukriMStreinerDLGuidelines for Reporting Reliability and Agreement Studies (GRRAS) were proposed201148661–671http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2011.01.016Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Barlett JW and Frost C. Reliability, repeatability and reproducibility: Analysis of measurement errors in continuous variables. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2008;31:466-475. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/uog.525610.1002/uog.525618306169BarlettJWFrostCReliability, repeatability and reproducibility: Analysis of measurement errors in continuous variables200831466–475http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/uog.5256Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Weir JP. Quantifying test-retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient and the SEM. J. Strength Cond Res. 2005;19:231-240.15705040WeirJPQuantifying test-retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient and the SEM200519231–24010.1519/00124278-200502000-00038Search in Google Scholar
Zaki R, Bulgiba A, Nordin N and Ismail NA. A systematic review of statistical methods used to test for reliability of medical instruments measuring continuous variables. Iranian J. Basic Med. Sci. 2013;16:803-807.ZakiRBulgibaANordinNIsmailNAA systematic review of statistical methods used to test for reliability of medical instruments measuring continuous variables201316803–807Search in Google Scholar
Nunnaly JC and Bernstein IH. Psychometric Theory. New York: McGrwaw-Hill. 1994.NunnalyJCBernsteinIHNew YorkMcGrwaw-Hill1994Search in Google Scholar
Lalkhen AG and McCluskey A. Clinical tests: sensitivity and specificity. Contin. Educ. Anaesth. Crit. Care. Pain. 2008;8:221-223. ttp://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bjaceaccp/mkn04110.1093/bjaceaccp/mkn041LalkhenAGMcCluskeyAClinical tests: sensitivity and specificity20088221–223ttp://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bjaceaccp/mkn041Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
ISO 5725-1:1994 Accuracy (trueness and precision) of measurement methods and results – Part 1: General principles and definitionsISO5725-11994Search in Google Scholar
Bland JM and Altman DG. Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat. Methods Med. Res. 1999;8:135-160. http://dx.doi.org/10.1191/09622809967381927210.1177/09622802990080020410501650BlandJMAltmanDGMeasuring agreement in method comparison studies19998135–160http://dx.doi.org/10.1191/096228099673819272Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Metz CE. Basic principles of ROC analysis. Semin. Nucl. Med. 1978;8:283-298. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0001-2998(78)80014-210.1016/S0001-2998(78)80014-2112681MetzCEBasic principles of ROC analysis19788283–298http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0001-2998(78)80014-2Open DOISearch in Google Scholar