An industry-academic collaboration was established to evaluate the choice of statistical test and study design for A/B testing in larger-scale industry experiments. Specifically, the standard approach at the industry partner was to apply a t-test for all outcomes, both continuous and binary, and to apply naïve interim monitoring strategies that had not evaluated the potential implications on operating characteristics such as power and type I error rates. Although many papers have summarized the robustness of the t-test, its performance for the A/B testing context of large-scale proportion data, with or without interim analyses, is needed. Investigating the effect of interim analyses on the robustness of the t-test is important, because interim analyses rely on a fraction of the total sample size and one should ensure that desired properties are maintained when a t-test is implemented not just at the end of the study, but for making interim decisions. Through simulation studies, the performance of the t-test, Chi-squared test, and Chi-squared test with Yate's correction when applied to binary outcomes data is evaluated. Further, interim monitoring through a naïve approach with no correction for multiple testing versus the O'Brien-Fleming boundary are considered in designs that allow early termination for futility, difference, or both. Results indicate that the t-test achieves similar power and type I error rates for binary outcomes data with the large sample sizes used in industrial A/B tests with and without interim monitoring, and naïve interim monitoring without corrections leads to poorly performing studies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhou et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: