Standard errors and confidence intervals for correlations corrected for indirect range restriction: A simulation study comparing analytic and bootstrap methods

2017 ◽  
Vol 71 (1) ◽  
pp. 39-59 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tamar Kennet-Cohen ◽  
Dvir Kleper ◽  
Elliot Turvall
2020 ◽  
pp. 096228022095873
Author(s):  
JA Thompson ◽  
K Hemming ◽  
A Forbes ◽  
K Fielding ◽  
R Hayes

Generalised estimating equations with the sandwich standard-error estimator provide a promising method of analysis for stepped wedge cluster randomised trials. However, they have inflated type-one error when used with a small number of clusters, which is common for stepped wedge cluster randomised trials. We present a large simulation study of binary outcomes comparing bias-corrected standard errors from Fay and Graubard; Mancl and DeRouen; Kauermann and Carroll; Morel, Bokossa, and Neerchal; and Mackinnon and White with an independent and exchangeable working correlation matrix. We constructed 95% confidence intervals using a t-distribution with degrees of freedom including clusters minus parameters (DFC-P), cluster periods minus parameters, and estimators from Fay and Graubard (DFFG), and Pan and Wall. Fay and Graubard and an approximation to Kauermann and Carroll (with simpler matrix inversion) were unbiased in a wide range of scenarios with an independent working correlation matrix and more than 12 clusters. They gave confidence intervals with close to 95% coverage with DFFG with 12 or more clusters, and DFC-P with 18 or more clusters. Both standard errors were conservative with fewer clusters. With an exchangeable working correlation matrix, approximated Kauermann and Carroll and Fay and Graubard had a small degree of under-coverage.


Animals ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. 1445
Author(s):  
Mauro Giammarino ◽  
Silvana Mattiello ◽  
Monica Battini ◽  
Piero Quatto ◽  
Luca Maria Battaglini ◽  
...  

This study focuses on the problem of assessing inter-observer reliability (IOR) in the case of dichotomous categorical animal-based welfare indicators and the presence of two observers. Based on observations obtained from Animal Welfare Indicators (AWIN) project surveys conducted on nine dairy goat farms, and using udder asymmetry as an indicator, we compared the performance of the most popular agreement indexes available in the literature: Scott’s π, Cohen’s k, kPABAK, Holsti’s H, Krippendorff’s α, Hubert’s Γ, Janson and Vegelius’ J, Bangdiwala’s B, Andrés and Marzo’s ∆, and Gwet’s γ(AC1). Confidence intervals were calculated using closed formulas of variance estimates for π, k, kPABAK, H, α, Γ, J, ∆, and γ(AC1), while the bootstrap and exact bootstrap methods were used for all the indexes. All the indexes and closed formulas of variance estimates were calculated using Microsoft Excel. The bootstrap method was performed with R software, while the exact bootstrap method was performed with SAS software. k, π, and α exhibited a paradoxical behavior, showing unacceptably low values even in the presence of very high concordance rates. B and γ(AC1) showed values very close to the concordance rate, independently of its value. Both bootstrap and exact bootstrap methods turned out to be simpler compared to the implementation of closed variance formulas and provided effective confidence intervals for all the considered indexes. The best approach for measuring IOR in these cases is the use of B or γ(AC1), with bootstrap or exact bootstrap methods for confidence interval calculation.


Author(s):  
Vaida Paketurytė ◽  
Vytautas Petrauskas ◽  
Asta Zubrienė ◽  
Olga Abian ◽  
Margarida Bastos ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document