Online surveys have the potential to support adaptive questions, where later questions depend on earlier responses. Past work has taken a rule-based approach, uniformly across all respondents. We envision a richer interpretation of adaptive questions, which we call dynamic question ordering (DQO), where question order is personalized. Such an approach could increase engagement, and therefore response rate, as well as imputation quality. We present a DQO framework to improve survey completion and imputation. In the general survey-taking setting, we want to maximize survey completion, and so we focus on ordering questions to engage the respondent and collect hopefully all information, or at least the information that most characterizes the respondent, for accurate imputations. In another scenario, our goal is to provide a personalized prediction. Since it is possible to give reasonable predictions with only a subset of questions, we are not concerned with motivating users to answer all questions. Instead, we want to order questions to get information that reduces prediction uncertainty, while not being too burdensome. We illustrate this framework with an example of providing energy estimates to prospective tenants. We also discuss DQO for national surveys and consider connections between our statistics-based question-ordering approach and cognitive survey methodology.
The design of the sequential multiple assignment randomized (SMAR) trial @cite_20 chooses a decision to make at each point according to what action will maximize the expected treatment outcome, given past information that has occurred. SMAR trials randomize individuals to different treatments at each decision time point.
@cite_20
2027795129 2045030310 2167371237 1510413338
In adaptive treatment strategies, the treatment level and type is repeatedly adjusted according to ongoing individual response. Since past treatment may have delayed effects, the development of these treatment strategies is challenging. This paper advocates the use of sequential multiple assignment randomized trials in the development of adaptive treatment strategies. Both a simple ad hoc method for ascertaining sample sizes and simple analysis methods are provided. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. The problem of multiple hypothesis testing with observation control is considered in both fixed sample size and sequential settings. In the fixed sample size setting, for binary hypothesis testing, the optimal exponent for the maximal error probability corresponds to the maximum Chernoff information over the choice of controls, and a pure stationary open-loop control policy is asymptotically optimal within the larger class of all causal control policies. For multihypothesis testing in the fixed sample size setting, lower and upper bounds on the optimal error exponent are derived. It is also shown through an example with three hypotheses that the optimal causal control policy can be strictly better than the optimal open-loop control policy. In the sequential setting, a test based on earlier work by Chernoff for binary hypothesis testing, is shown to be first-order asymptotically optimal for multihypothesis testing in a strong sense, using the notion of decision making risk in place of the overall probability of error. Another test is also designed to meet hard risk constrains while retaining asymptotic optimality. The role of past information and randomization in designing optimal control policies is discussed. We present new statistical analyses of data arising from a clinical trial designed to compare two-stage dynamic treatment regimes (DTRs) for advanced prostate cancer. The trial protocol mandated that patients be initially randomized among four chemotherapies, and that those who responded poorly be re-randomized to one of the remaining candidate therapies. The primary aim was to compare the DTRs’ overall success rates, with success defined by the occurrence of successful responses in each of two consecutive courses of the patient’s therapy. Of the 150 study participants, 47 did not complete their therapy as per the algorithm. However, 35 of them did so for reasons that precluded further chemotherapy, that is, toxicity and or progressive disease. Consequently, rather than comparing the overall success rates of the DTRs in the unrealistic event that these patients had remained on their assigned chemotherapies, we conducted an analysis that compared viable switch rules defined by the per-protocol rules but with the additional provision that patients who developed toxicity or progressive disease switch to a non-prespecified therapeutic or palliative strategy. This modification involved consideration of bivariate per-course outcomes encoding both efficacy and toxicity. We used numerical scores elicited from the trial’s principal investigator to quantify the clinical desirability of each bivariate per-course outcome, and defined one endpoint as their average over all courses of treatment. Two other simpler sets of scores as well as log survival time were also used as endpoints. Estimation of each DTR-specific mean score was conducted using inverse probability weighted methods that assumed that missingness in the 12 remaining dropouts was informative but explainable in that it only depended on past recorded data. We conducted additional worst- and best-case analyses to evaluate sensitivity of our findings to extreme departures from the explainable dropout assumption. Abstract In this article two new methods for building and evaluating eHealth interventions are described. The first is the Multiphase Optimization Strategy (MOST). It consists of a screening phase, in which intervention components are efficiently identified for inclusion in an intervention or for rejection, based on their performance; a refining phase, in which the selected components are fine tuned and issues such as optimal levels of each component are investigated; and a confirming phase, in which the optimized intervention, consisting of the selected components delivered at optimal levels, is evaluated in a standard randomized controlled trial. The second is the Sequential Multiple Assignment Randomized Trial (SMART), which is an innovative research design especially suited for building time-varying adaptive interventions. A SMART trial can be used to identify the best tailoring variables and decision rules for an adaptive intervention empirically. Both the MOST and SMART approaches use randomized experimentation to enable valid inferences. When properly implemented, these approaches will lead to the development of more potent eHealth interventions.