Local power properties of some asymptotic tests in symmetric linear regression models

In this paper we obtain asymptotic expansions, up to order n^−1/2 and under a sequence of Pitman alternatives, for the nonnull distribution functions of the likelihood ratio, Wald, score and gradient test statistics in the class of symmetric linear regression models. This is a wide class of models which encompasses the t model and several other symmetric distributions with longer-than normal tails. The asymptotic distributions of all four statistics are obtained for testing a subset of regression parameters. Furthermore, in order to compare the finite-sample performance of these tests in this class of models, Monte Carlo simulations are presented. An empirical application to a real data set is considered for illustrative purposes.     

Restricted Estimation in Partially Linear Errors-in-Variables Models

As a compromise between parametric regression and nonparametric regression, partially linear models are frequently used in statistical modelling. This article considers statistical inference for this semiparametric model when the linear covariate is measured with additive error and some additional linear restrictions on the parametric component are assumed to hold. We propose a restricted corrected profile least-squares estimator for the parametric component, and study the asymptotic normality of the estimator. To test hypothesis on the parametric component, we construct a Wald test statistic and obtain its limiting distribution. Some simulation studies are conducted to illustrate our approaches.     

Optimal Method for Realizing Two-Sided Inferences About a Linear Combination of Two Proportions

In order to reach the inference about a linear combination of two independent binomial proportions, various procedures exist (Wald's classic method, the exact, approximate, or maximized score methods, and the Newcombe-Zou method). This article defines and evaluates 25 different methods of inference, and selects the ones with the best behavior. In general terms, the optimal method is the classic Wald method applied to the data to which z ² _α/2/4 successes and z ² _α/2/4 failures are added (≈1 if α = 5%) if no sample proportion has a value of 0 or 1 (otherwise the added increase may be different).

Supplemental materials are available for this article. Go to the publisher's online edition of Communications in Statistics - Simulation and Computation to view the free supplemental file.     

Interval estimation of the negative binomial dispersion parameter

Inference concerning the negative binomial dispersion parameter, denoted by c, is important in many biological and biomedical investigations. Properties of the maximum-likelihood estimator of c and its bias-corrected version have been studied extensively, mainly, in terms of bias and efficiency [W.W. Piegorsch, Maximum likelihood estimation for the negative binomial dispersion parameter, Biometrics 46 (1990), pp. 863–867; S.J. Clark and J.N. Perry, Estimation of the negative binomial parameter κ by maximum quasi-likelihood, Biometrics 45 (1989), pp. 309–316; K.K. Saha and S.R. Paul, Bias corrected maximum likelihood estimator of the negative binomial dispersion parameter, Biometrics 61 (2005), pp. 179–185]. However, not much work has been done on the construction of confidence intervals (C.I.s) for c. The purpose of this paper is to study the behaviour of some C.I. procedures for c. We study, by simulations, three Wald type C.I. procedures based on the asymptotic distribution of the method of moments estimate (mme), the maximum-likelihood estimate (mle) and the bias-corrected mle (bcmle) [K.K. Saha and S.R. Paul, Bias corrected maximum likelihood estimator of the negative binomial dispersion parameter, Biometrics 61 (2005), pp. 179–185] of c. All three methods show serious under-coverage. We further study parametric bootstrap procedures based on these estimates of c, which significantly improve the coverage probabilities. The bootstrap C.I.s based on the mle (Boot-MLE method) and the bcmle (Boot-BCM method) have coverages that are significantly better (empirical coverage close to the nominal coverage) than the corresponding bootstrap C.I. based on the mme, especially for small sample size and highly over-dispersed data. However, simulation results on lengths of the C.I.s show evidence that all three bootstrap procedures have larger average coverage lengths. Therefore, for practical data analysis, the bootstrap C.I. Boot-MLE or Boot-BCM should be used, although Boot-MLE method seems to be preferable over the Boot-BCM method in terms of both coverage and length. Furthermore, Boot-MLE needs less computation than Boot-BCM.     

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.     

Bayesian Interval Estimation for the Difference in TPRs and FPRs of Two Diagnostic Tests with Unverified Negatives

We derive Bayesian interval estimators for the differences in the true positive rates and false positive rates of two dichotomous diagnostic tests applied to the members of two distinct populations. The populations have varying disease prevalences with unverified negatives. We compare the performance of the Bayesian credible interval to the Wald interval using Monte Carlo simulation for a spectrum of different TPRs, FPRs, and sample sizes. For the case of a low TPR and low FPR, we found that a Bayesian credible interval with relatively noninformative priors performed well. We obtain similar interval comparison results for the cases of a high TPR and high FPR, a high TPR and low FPR, and of a high TPR and mixed FPR after incorporating mildly informative priors.     

To Pool or Not to Pool: The Quality Bank Case

Drawing on a recent hearing before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, this article illustrates how two statisticians on opposing sides, using two different approaches to the problem, arrived at the same estimator. The differences between the two approaches are highlighted and a proof for the equivalence of the two estimators is given.     

Testing linear inequality constraints in the standard linear model

In this paper we are concerned with the problem of testing whether the â-parameters of the standard linear model satisfy the linear equality constraints R = r when they are known to satisfy the corresponding linear inequality constraints Râ ? r. In particular we will show that the exact finite sample null distributions of the Likelihood Ratio, Wald and Kuhn-Tucker

statistics are known when R is of full row rank but not known when R has less than full row rank. The less than full row rank problem has not been discussed previously but it is of considerable potential importance.

This paper contains several simple numerical examples which illustrate the computational details of the tests     

On Small Sample Properties of the Wald,LR and LM Tests in a Linear Model with AR(1) Errors

When the error terms are autocorrelated, the conventional t-tests for individual regression coefficients mislead us to over-rejection of the null hypothesis. We examine, by Monte Carlo experiments, the small sample properties of the unrestricted estimator of ρ and of the estimator of ρ restricted by the null hypothesis. We compare the small sample properties of the Wald, likelihood ratio and Lagrange multiplier test statistics for individual regression coefficients. It is shown that when the null hypothesis is true, the unrestricted estimator of ρ is biased. It is also shown that the Lagrange multiplier test using the maximum likelihood estimator of ρ performs better than the Wald and likelihood ratio tests.     

A comment on sample size calculations for binomial confidence intervals

In this article we examine sample size calculations for a binomial proportion based on the confidence interval width of the Agresti–Coull, Wald and Wilson Score intervals. We pointed out that the commonly used methods based on known and fixed standard errors cannot guarantee the desired confidence interval width given a hypothesized proportion. Therefore, a new adjusted sample size calculation method was introduced, which is based on the conditional expectation of the width of the confidence interval given the hypothesized proportion. With the reduced sample size, the coverage probability can still maintain at the nominal level and is very competitive to the converge probability for the original sample size.