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.     

Multiperiod Forecasts of Interest Rates

The accuracy of forecasts of interest rates over different forecast horizons and time periods is examined. The results indicate a deterioration in “absolute” forecast accuracy measured by the mean absolute error and the root mean squared error but no decrease in “relative” accuracy measured by the Theil coefficient with an increase in the forecast span. The results also indicate a decline in accuracy in periods of volatile interest rates. Support is found for the hypothesis that the ratio of the variability of predicted changes to that of actual changes falls with an increase in the forecast horizon.     

Estimation of Current-Quarter Gross National Product by Pooling Preliminary Labor-Market Data

Two methods of using labor-market data as indicators of contemporaneous gross national product (GNP) are developed. The establishment survey data are used by inverting a partial-adjustment equation for hours. A second GNP forecast can be extracted from the household survey by using Okun's law. Using preliminary rather than final data adds about .2 to .4 percentage point to the expected value of the root mean squared errors and changes the weights that the pooling procedure assigns to the two forecasts. The use of preliminary rather than final data results in a procedure that assigns more importance to the Okun's-law forecast.     

Efficacy of Statistical Outlier Analysis for Monitoring Quality of Care

Researchers have proposed that hospitals with excessive statistically unexplained mortality rates are more likely to have quality-of-care problems. The U.S. Health Care Financing Administration currently uses this statistical “outlier” approach to screen for poor quality in hospitals. Little is known, however, about the validity of this technique, since direct measures of quality are difficult to obtain. We use Monte Carlo methods to evaluate the performance of the outlier technique as parameters of the true mortality process are varied. Results indicate that the screening ability of the technique may be very sensitive to how widespread quality-related mortality is among hospitals but insensitive to other factors generally thought to be important.     

Amemiya‘s generalized least squares and tests of overidentification in simultaneous equation models with qualitative or limited dependent variables

Amemiya's generalized least squares method for the estimation of simultaneous equation modeis with qualitative or limited dependent variables is known to be efficient relative to many popular two stage estimators. This note points out that test statistics for overidentification restrictions can be obtained as by-products of Amerniya's generalized least squares procedure. Amemiya's procedure is shown to be a minimum chisquare method. The Amemiya procedure is valuable both for efficient estimation and for model evaluation of such models.     

Serials Clutter in Online Catalogs

Abstract

Finding and deciphering serials records in online catalogs is a challenge to many library users. To understand and analyze these challenges, the author conducted searches for scientific journal titles in the online catalogs of Committee on Institutional Cooperation (CIC) libraries. The first part of the study measures the difficulty of retrieving serial records from online catalogs comparing one-word versus multiple-word titles. The second part analyzes displays for complexity by measuring the length of the complete record and the length of the holdings statements. These data show the complexity of displays and indicate the potential confusion that these displays may induce in library users.     

The Ranges of Limiting Values of Some Partial Correlations under Conditional Independence

Pearson's partial correlation, Kendall's partial tau, and a partial correlation based on Spearman's rho need not be consistent estimators of zero under conditional independence. The ranges of possible limiting values of these correlations are computed under multivariate normality and lognormality. Students should exercise caution when interpreting these partial correlations as a measure of conditional independence.     

Multiple Comparison Procedures: The Practical Solution

A practicing statistician looks at the multiple comparison controversy and related issues through the eyes of the users. The concept of consistency is introduced and discussed in relation to five of the more common multiple comparison procedures. All of the procedures are found to be inconsistent except the simplest procedure, the unrestricted least significant difference (LSD) procedure (or multiple t test). For this and other reasons the unrestricted LSD procedure is recommended for general use, with the proviso that it should be viewed as a hypothesis generator rather than as a method for simultaneous hypothesis generation and testing. The implications for Scheffé's test for general contrasts are also discussed, and a new recommendation is made.     

Editor's Report

There are two common methods for statistical inference on 2 × 2 contingency tables. One is the widely taught Pearson chi-square test, which uses the well-known χ²statistic. The chi-square test is appropriate for large sample inference, and it is equivalent to the Z-test that uses the difference between the two sample proportions for the 2 × 2 case. Another method is Fisher’s exact test, which evaluates the likelihood of each table with the same marginal totals. This article mathematically justifies that these two methods for determining extreme do not completely agree with each other. Our analysis obtains one-sided and two-sided conditions under which a disagreement in determining extreme between the two tests could occur. We also address the question whether or not their discrepancy in determining extreme would make them draw different conclusions when testing homogeneity or independence. Our examination of the two tests casts light on which test should be trusted when the two tests draw different conclusions.