Estimation of Several Intraclass Correlation Coefficients

An intraclass correlation coefficient observed in several populations is estimated. The basis is a variance-stabilizing transformation. It is shown that the intraclass correlation coefficient from any elliptical distribution should be transformed in the same way. Four estimators are compared. An estimator where the components in a vector consisting of the transformed intraclass correlation coefficients are estimated separately, an estimator based on a weighted average of these components, a pretest estimator where the equality of the components is tested and then the outcome of the test is used in the estimation procedure, and a James-Stein estimator which shrinks toward the mean.     

The degree of severity of heteroskedasticity and the traditional goldfeld and quandt pretest estimator

The traditional Goldfeld and Quandt heteroskedasticity pretesting methodology disregards the fact that even though heteroskedasticity may exist, its degree of severity might be such that the OLS estimator would still outperform the 2SAE. It, therefore, produces results inferior to the OLS estimator when the degree of severity of heteroskedasticity is very mild. This paper through Monte Carlo simulations shows that the probabilistic pretesting procedure suggested by Adjibolosoo (1989) is more powerful than the traditional Goldfeld and Quandt heteroskedasticity pretesting methodology at the usual traditionally selected levels of significance     

Comparison of Statistical Methods for Pretest–Posttest Designs in Terms of Type I Error Probability and Statistical Power

The pretest–posttest design is widely used to investigate the effect of an experimental treatment in biomedical research. The treatment effect may be assessed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) or analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). The normality assumption for parametric ANOVA and ANCOVA may be violated due to outliers and skewness of data. Nonparametric methods, robust statistics, and data transformation may be used to address the nonnormality issue. However, there is no simultaneous comparison for the four statistical approaches in terms of empirical type I error probability and statistical power. We studied 13 ANOVA and ANCOVA models based on parametric approach, rank and normal score-based nonparametric approach, Huber M-estimation, and Box–Cox transformation using normal data with and without outliers and lognormal data. We found that ANCOVA models preserve the nominal significance level better and are more powerful than their ANOVA counterparts when the dependent variable and covariate are correlated. Huber M-estimation is the most liberal method. Nonparametric ANCOVA, especially ANCOVA based on normal score transformation, preserves the nominal significance level, has good statistical power, and is robust for data distribution.     

On a Comparison of Several Competing Estimates of a Univariate Normal Mean by the Multiple Criteria Decision-Making Method

In this article we consider the problem of estimation of the mean of a univariate normal population with an unknown variance when uncertain nonsample prior information about the mean is available. We compare four estimators of the mean, including pretest and shrinkage estimators. The performances of the estimators are compared based on the multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) procedure in order to find the best estimator.     

Preliminary Goodness-of-Fit Tests for Normality do not Validate the One-Sample Student t

One of the most basic topics in many introductory statistical methods texts is inference for a population mean, μ. The primary tool for confidence intervals and tests is the Student t sampling distribution. Although the derivation requires independent identically distributed normal random variables with constant variance, σ², most authors reassure the readers about some robustness to the normality and constant variance assumptions. Some point out that if one is concerned about assumptions, one may statistically test these prior to reliance on the Student t. Most software packages provide optional test results for both (a) the Gaussian assumption and (b) homogeneity of variance. Many textbooks advise only informal graphical assessments, such as certain scatterplots for independence, others for constant variance, and normal quantile–quantile plots for the adequacy of the Gaussian model. We concur with this recommendation. As convincing evidence against formal tests of (a), such as the Shapiro–Wilk, we offer a simulation study of the tails of the resulting conditional sampling distributions of the Studentized mean. We analyze the results of systematically screening all samples from normal, uniform, exponential, and Cauchy populations. This pretest does not correct the erroneous significance levels and makes matters worse for the exponential. In practice, we conclude that graphical diagnostics are better than a formal pretest. Furthermore, rank or permutation methods are recommended for exact validity in the symmetric case.