Bayesian confidence intervals of proportion with misclassified binary data

A Bayesian approach is considered for the interval estimation of a binomial proportion in doubly sampled data. The coverage probability and the expected width of the Bayesian confidence interval are compared with likelihood-related confidence intervals. It is shown that a hierarchical Bayesian approach provides relatively simple and effective confidence intervals. In addition, it is shown that Agresti–Coull type confidence interval, discussed by  Lee and Choi (2009), can be justified by the Bayesian framework.     

Interval estimation for a binomial proportion: a bootstrap approach

This paper discusses the classic but still current problem of interval estimation of a binomial proportion. Bootstrap methods are presented for constructing such confidence intervals in a routine, automatic way. Three confidence intervals for a binomial proportion are compared and studied by means of a simulation study, namely: the Wald confidence interval, the Agresti–Coull interval and the bootstrap-t interval. A new confidence interval, the Agresti–Coull interval with bootstrap critical values, is also introduced and its good behaviour related to the average coverage probability is established by means of simulations.     

A comparative study of confidence intervals for negative binomial proportion

In this paper, we investigate four existing and three new confidence interval estimators for the negative binomial proportion (i.e., proportion under inverse/negative binomial sampling). An extensive and systematic comparative study among these confidence interval estimators through Monte Carlo simulations is presented. The performance of these confidence intervals are evaluated in terms of their coverage probabilities and expected interval widths. Our simulation studies suggest that the confidence interval estimator based on saddlepoint approximation is more appealing for large coverage levels (e.g., nominal level≤1% ) whereas the score confidence interval estimator is more desirable for those commonly used coverage levels (e.g., nominal level>1% ). We illustrate these confidence interval construction methods with a real data set from a maternal congenital heart disease study.     

Matching pseudocounts for interval estimation of binomial and Poisson parameters

ABSTRACT

For interval estimation of a binomial proportion and a Poisson mean, matching pseudocounts are derived, which give the one-sided Wald confidence intervals with second-order accuracy. The confidence intervals remove the bias of coverage probabilities given by the score confidence intervals. Partial poor behavior of the confidence intervals by the matching pseudocounts is corrected by hybrid methods using the score confidence interval depending on sample values.     

Confidence Intervals for the Weighted Sum of Two Independent Binomial Proportions

Confidence intervals for the difference of two binomial proportions are well known, however, confidence intervals for the weighted sum of two binomial proportions are less studied. We develop and compare seven methods for constructing confidence intervals for the weighted sum of two independent binomial proportions. The interval estimates are constructed by inverting the Wald test, the score test and the Likelihood ratio test. The weights can be negative, so our results generalize those for the difference between two independent proportions. We provide a numerical study that shows that these confidence intervals based on large‐sample approximations perform very well, even when a relatively small amount of data is available. The intervals based on the inversion of the score test showed the best performance. Finally, we show that as for the difference of two binomial proportions, adding four pseudo‐outcomes to the Wald interval for the weighted sum of two binomial proportions improves its coverage significantly, and we provide a justification for this correction.     

Coverage‐adjusted Confidence Intervals for a Binomial Proportion

We consider the classic problem of interval estimation of a proportion p based on binomial sampling. The ‘exact’ Clopper–Pearson confidence interval for p is known to be unnecessarily conservative. We propose coverage adjustments of the Clopper–Pearson interval that incorporate prior or posterior beliefs into the interval. Using heatmap‐type plots for comparing confidence intervals, we show that the coverage‐adjusted intervals have satisfying coverage and shorter expected lengths than competing intervals found in the literature.     

Exact likelihood ratio and score confidence intervals for the binomial proportion

Many methods are available for computing a confidence interval for the binomial parameter, and these methods differ in their operating characteristics. It has been suggested in the literature that the use of the exact likelihood ratio (LR) confidence interval for the binomial proportion should be considered. This paper provides an evaluation of the operating characteristics of the two‐sided exact LR and exact score confidence intervals for the binomial proportion and compares these results to those for three other methods that also strictly maintain nominal coverage: Clopper‐Pearson, Blaker, and Casella. In addition, the operating characteristics of the two‐sided exact LR method and exact score method are compared with those of the corresponding asymptotic methods to investigate the adequacy of the asymptotic approximation. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

A procedure for approximate negative binomial tolerance intervals

In this article, we present a procedure for approximate negative binomial tolerance intervals. We utilize an approach that has been well-studied to approximate tolerance intervals for the binomial and Poisson settings, which is based on the confidence interval for the parameter in the respective distribution. A simulation study is performed to assess the coverage probabilities and expected widths of the tolerance intervals. The simulation study also compares eight different confidence interval approaches for the negative binomial proportions. We recommend using those in practice that perform the best based on our simulation results. The method is also illustrated using two real data examples.     

A Simple Approximate Procedure for Constructing Binomial and Poisson Tolerance Intervals

The problems of constructing tolerance intervals for the binomial and Poisson distributions are considered. Closed-form approximate equal-tailed tolerance intervals (that control percentages in both tails) are proposed for both distributions. Exact coverage probabilities and expected widths are evaluated for the proposed equal-tailed tolerance intervals and the existing intervals. Furthermore, an adjustment to the nominal confidence level is suggested so that an equal-tailed tolerance interval can be used as a tolerance interval which includes a specified proportion of the population, but does not necessarily control percentages in both tails. Comparison of such coverage-adjusted tolerance intervals with respect to coverage probabilities and expected widths indicates that the closed-form approximate tolerance intervals are comparable with others, and less conservative, with minimum coverage probabilities close to the nominal level in most cases. The approximate tolerance intervals are simple and easy to compute using a calculator, and they can be recommended for practical applications. The methods are illustrated using two practical examples.     

Confidence curves and improved exact confidence intervals for discrete distributions

The author describes a method for improving standard “exact” confidence intervals in discrete distributions with respect to size while retaining correct level. The binomial, negative binomial, hypergeometric, and Poisson distributions are considered explicitly. Contrary to other existing methods, the author's solution possesses a natural nesting condition: if α < α', the 1 ‐ α' confidence interval is included in the 1 ‐ α interval. Nonparametric confidence intervals for a quantile are also considered.     

Confidence Intervals for Survival Probabilities: A Comparison Study

The confidence interval of the Kaplan–Meier estimate of the survival probability at a fixed time point is often constructed by the Greenwood formula. This normal approximation-based method can be looked as a Wald type confidence interval for a binomial proportion, the survival probability, using the “effective” sample size defined by Cutler and Ederer. Wald-type binomial confidence interval has been shown to perform poorly comparing to other methods. We choose three methods of binomial confidence intervals for the construction of confidence interval for survival probability: Wilson's method, Agresti–Coull's method, and higher-order asymptotic likelihood method. The methods of “effective” sample size proposed by Peto et al. and Dorey and Korn are also considered. The Greenwood formula is far from satisfactory, while confidence intervals based on the three methods of binomial proportion using Cutler and Ederer's “effective” sample size have much better performance.     

Approximate and Fiducial Confidence Intervals for the Difference Between Two Binomial Proportions

The problem of estimating the difference between two binomial proportions is considered. Closed-form approximate confidence intervals (CIs) and a fiducial CI for the difference between proportions are proposed. The approximate CIs are simple to compute, and they perform better than the classical Wald CI in terms of coverage probabilities and precision. Numerical studies indicate that these approximate CIs can be used safely for practical applications under a simple condition. The fiducial CI is more accurate than the approximate CIs in terms of coverage probabilities. The fiducial CIs, the Newcombe CIs, and the Miettinen–Nurminen CIs are comparable in terms of coverage probabilities and precision. The interval estimation procedures are illustrated using two examples.     

一种简单有效的二项分布比例参数似然比置信区间的求法

对二项分布比例参数p的似然比置信区间,提出一种简便求解方法。在平均覆盖率、平均区间长度及区间长度的95%置信区间准则下与WScore、Plus4、Jeffreys置信区间进行模拟比较。试验表明,在二项分布b(n,p)的参数n≥20且p∈(0.1,0.9)时,该方法获取的似然比置信区间性能优良。当点估计p值不是接近于0或1且n≥20时,推荐使用本方法获取p的置信区间。     

Mean-Minimum Exact Confidence Intervals

This article introduces mean-minimum (MM) exact confidence intervals for a binomial probability. These intervals guarantee that both the mean and the minimum frequentist coverage never drop below specified values. For example, an MM 95[93]% interval has mean coverage at least 95% and minimum coverage at least 93%. In the conventional sense, such an interval can be viewed as an exact 93% interval that has mean coverage at least 95% or it can be viewed as an approximate 95% interval that has minimum coverage at least 93%. Graphical and numerical summaries of coverage and expected length suggest that the Blaker-based MM exact interval is an attractive alternative to, even an improvement over, commonly recommended approximate and exact intervals, including the Agresti–Coull approximate interval, the Clopper–Pearson (CP) exact interval, and the more recently recommended CP-, Blaker-, and Sterne-based mean-coverage-adjusted approximate intervals.     

Smallest confidence intervals for one binomial proportion

We specify three classes of one-sided and two-sided $1-\alpha$ confidence intervals with certain monotonicity and symmetry on the confidence limits for the probability of success, the parameter in a binomial distribution. For each class of one-sided confidence intervals the smallest interval, in the sense of the set inclusion, is obtained based on the direct analysis of coverage probability functions. A simple sufficient and necessary condition for the existence of the smallest two-sided confidence interval is provided and the smallest interval is derived if it exists. Thus the proposed intervals are uniformly most accurate, and have the uniformly minimum expected length as well.     

The monotone boundary property and the full coverage property of confidence intervals for a binomial proportion

The methodology for deriving the exact confidence coefficient of some confidence intervals for a binomial proportion is proposed in Wang [2007. Exact confidence coefficients of confidence intervals for a binomial proportion. Statist. Sinica 17, 361–368]. The methodology requires two conditions of confidence intervals: the monotone boundary property and the full coverage property. In this paper, we show that for some confidence intervals of a binomial proportion, the two properties hold for any sample size. Based on results presented in this paper, the procedure in Wang [2007. Exact confidence coefficients of confidence intervals for a binomial proportion. Statist. Sinica 17, 361–368] can be directly used to calculate the exact confidence coefficients of these confidence intervals for any fixed sample size.     

Comparing Equal-Tail Probability and Unbiased Confidence Intervals for the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient

The conventional confidence interval for the intraclass correlation coefficient assumes equal-tail probabilities. In general, the equal-tail probability interval is biased and other interval procedures should be considered. Unbiased confidence intervals for the intraclass correlation coefficient are readily available. The equal-tail probability and unbiased intervals have exact coverage as they are constructed using the pivotal quantity method. In this article, confidence intervals for the intraclass correlation coefficient are built using balanced and unbalanced one-way random effects models. The expected length of confidence intervals serves as a tool to compare the two procedures. The unbiased confidence interval outperforms the equal-tail probability interval if the intraclass correlation coefficient is small and the equal-tail probability interval outperforms the unbiased interval if the intraclass correlation coefficient is large.     

Exact confidence limits for the probability of response in two-stage designs

In addition to point estimate for the probability of response in a two-stage design (e.g. Simon's two-stage design for binary endpoints), confidence limits should be computed and reported. The current method of inverting the p-value function to compute the confidence interval does not guarantee coverage probability in a two-stage setting. The existing exact approach to calculate one-sided limits is based on the overall number of responses to order the sample space. This approach could be conservative because many sample points have the same limits. We propose a new exact one-sided interval based on p-value for the sample space ordering. Exact intervals are computed by using binomial distributions directly, instead of a normal approximation. Both exact intervals preserve the nominal confidence level. The proposed exact interval based on the p-value generally performs better than the other exact interval with regard to expected length and simple average length of confidence intervals.     

Exact Short Confidence Intervals from Discrete Data

Suppose that X is a discrete random variable whose possible values are {0, 1, 2,⋯} and whose probability mass function belongs to a family indexed by the scalar parameter θ . This paper presents a new algorithm for finding a 1 − α confidence interval for θ based on X which possesses the following three properties: (i) the infimum over θ of the coverage probability is 1 − α ; (ii) the confidence interval cannot be shortened without violating the coverage requirement; (iii) the lower and upper endpoints of the confidence intervals are increasing functions of the observed value x . This algorithm is applied to the particular case that X has a negative binomial distribution.     

Bootstrap confidence intervals of generalized process capability index Cpyk for Lindley and power Lindley distributions

One of the indicators for evaluating the capability of a process is the process capability index. In this article, bootstrap confidence intervals of the generalized process capability index (GPCI) proposed by Maiti et al. are studied through simulation, when the underlying distributions are Lindley and Power Lindley distributions. The maximum likelihood method is used to estimate the parameters of the models. Three bootstrap confidence intervals namely, standard bootstrap (SB), percentile bootstrap (PB), and bias-corrected percentile bootstrap (BCPB) are considered for obtaining confidence intervals of GPCI. A Monte Carlo simulation has been used to investigate the estimated coverage probabilities and average width of the bootstrap confidence intervals. Simulation results show that the estimated coverage probabilities of the percentile bootstrap confidence interval and the bias-corrected percentile bootstrap confidence interval get closer to the nominal confidence level than those of the standard bootstrap confidence interval. Finally, three real datasets are analyzed for illustrative purposes.