Equivalence tests - A review

被引:91
作者
Meyners, Michael [1 ]
机构
[1] Procter & Gamble Serv GmbH, German Innovat Ctr, D-65824 Schwalbach, Germany
关键词
Equivalence testing; Parity; Similarity; Non-inferiority; TOST; Rejection region; Open symmetric intervals; INTERSECTION-UNION TESTS; CONFIDENCE-INTERVALS; COMPARATIVE BIOAVAILABILITY; BIOEQUIVALENCE TRIALS; POWERFUL TESTS; TRIANGLE TEST; FOOD-QUALITY; HYPOTHESES; DIFFERENCE; PREFERENCE;
D O I
10.1016/j.foodqual.2012.05.003
中图分类号
TS2 [食品工业];
学科分类号
0832 ;
摘要
Equivalence tests are becoming increasingly popular in many application areas including sensory sciences. They should be applied whenever the aim of the study is not to show differences, but to conclude similarity. There has been quite some debate about pros and cons of different approaches, reaching the sensory and sensometrics community in recent years. Parts of the sometimes heated debate are, in our opinion, due to mutual misunderstandings, and to different objectives and hence selection criteria for an "optimal" test, boiling down to,:he question whether power is the only optimality criterion to apply, or whether somehow vague criteria like intuition should be taken into account as well. This review intends to give an introduction into equivalence tests, starting with some general considerations on the statistical testing of hypotheses. We will subsequently give an overview over the most common approaches, some of which are shown to be inappropriate (e.g. the power approach). Some valid and relatively simple methods will be introduced and their correspondence to confidence intervals clarified, while we will skip the mathematical details of some more recent tests. Instead, the pros and cons of different approaches will be discussed and recommendations given. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:231 / 245
页数:15
相关论文
共 70 条
[21]   Comments on DM Ennis' presentation on equivalence testing [J].
Bi, Jian .
FOOD QUALITY AND PREFERENCE, 2010, 21 (03) :259-260
[22]   Using the Benchmark Dose (BMD) Methodology to Determine an Appropriate Reduction of Certain Ingredients in Food Products [J].
Bi, Jian .
JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE, 2010, 75 (01) :R9-R16
[23]   The statistical power of replications in difference tests [J].
Brockhoff, PB .
FOOD QUALITY AND PREFERENCE, 2003, 14 (5-6) :405-417
[24]   WHY PROOF OF SAFETY IS MUCH MORE DIFFICULT THAN PROOF OF HAZARD [J].
BROSS, ID .
BIOMETRICS, 1985, 41 (03) :785-793
[25]  
Brown L.D., 1995, AB BAF MU MAG KASH B
[26]  
Brown LD, 1997, ANN STAT, V25, P2345
[27]  
Buehler G.J., 2010, HIST BIOEQUIVALENCE, P34
[28]  
Carr B.T., 1995, P 4 AGROSTAT M 1995, P22
[29]   Equivalence testing: A brief review [J].
Castura, John C. .
FOOD QUALITY AND PREFERENCE, 2010, 21 (03) :257-258
[30]   Estimation and inference in the same-different test [J].
Christensen, Rune Haubo Bojesen ;
Brockhoff, Per Bruun .
FOOD QUALITY AND PREFERENCE, 2009, 20 (07) :514-524