A simple alternative to the likelihood ratio test in a logistic discrimination problem

We consider the problem of hypothesis-testing under a logistic model with two dichotomous independent variables. In particular, we consider the case in which the coefficients β₁, and β₂ of these variables are known on an a priori basis to not be of opposite sign. For this situation we show that there exists a simple nonparametric altenative to the likelihood ratio test for testing H₀: β₁ = β₂ = 0 VS.H₁ at least one β₁ = 0. We find the asympotic relative efficiency of this test and show that it exceeds 0.90 under a wide range of conditions. We also given an example.     

The questions of fit in the gregor mendel controversy

Ever since R. A. Fisher published his 1936 article , "Has Mendel's Work Been Rediscovered?", historians of both biclogy and statistics have been fascinated by the surprisingly high conformity between Gregor (Johann) Mendel's observed and expected ratios in his famous experiments with peas. Fisher's calculatftl x² statistic of the experiments, taken as a whole, suggested that results on a par or better than those Mendel reported coultl only be expected to occur about three times in every 100,000 attempts. The ensuing controversy as to whether or not the good Father "sophisticated" his data has continued to this very day. In recent years the controversy has focused upon the more technical question of what underlying genetic arrangement Mendel actually studied.

The statistical issues of the controversy are exam:.led in am historical and comparative perspective. The changes the controversy has gone through are evaluated, and the nature of its current, more biological, status is briefly discussed.     

Interval Estimation for the Difference of Two Independent Variances

Analytical methods for interval estimation of differences between variances have not been described. A simple analytical method is given for interval estimation of the difference between variances of two independent samples. It is shown, using simulations, that confidence intervals generated with this method have close to nominal coverage even when sample sizes are small and unequal and observations are highly skewed and leptokurtic, provided the difference in variances is not very large. The method is also adapted for testing the hypothesis of no difference between variances. The test is robust but slightly less powerful than Bonett's test with small samples.     

A Comparison of Large-Sample Confidence Interval Methods for the Difference of Two Binomial Probabilities

A simulation study was done to compare seven confidence interval methods, based on the normal approximation, for the difference of two binomial probabilities. Cases considered included minimum expected cell sizes ranging from 2 to 15 and smallest group sizes (NMIN) ranging from 6 to 100. Our recommendation is to use a continuity correction of 1/(2 NMIN) combined with the use of (N ? 1) rather than N in the estimate of the standard error. For all of the cases considered with minimum expected cell size of at least 3, this method gave coverage probabilities close to or greater than the nominal 90% and 95%. The Yates method is also acceptable, but it is slightly more conservative. At the other extreme, the usual method (with no continuity correction) does not provide adequate coverage even at the larger sample sizes. For the 99% intervals, our recommended method and the Yates correction performed equally well and are reasonable for minimum expected cell sizes of at least 5. None of the methods performed consistently well for a minimum expected cell size of 2.     

Methodological decisions and the evaluation of possible effects of different family structures on children: The new family structures survey (NFSS)

Every social science researcher must make a number of methodological decisions when planning and implementing research projects. Each such decision carries with it both advantages and limitations. The decisions faced and made by Regnerus (2012) are discussed here in the wider context of social science literature regarding same-sex parenting. Even though the apparent outcomes of Regnerus’s study were unpopular, the methodological decisions he made in the design and implementation of the New Family Structures Survey were not uncommon among social scientists, including many progressive, gay and lesbian scholars. These decisions and the research they produced deserve considerable and continued discussion, but criticisms of the underlying ethics and professionalism are misplaced because nearly every methodological decision that was made has ample precedents in research published by many other credible and distinguished scholars.