Standard errors and confidence intervals for correlations corrected for indirect range restriction: A simulation study comparing analytic and bootstrap methods

A frequent topic of psychological research is the estimation of the correlation between two variables from a sample that underwent a selection process based on a third variable. Due to indirect range restriction, the sample correlation is a biased estimator of the population correlation, and a correction formula is used. In the past, bootstrap standard error and confidence intervals for the corrected correlations were examined with normal data. The present study proposes a large-sample estimate (an analytic method) for the standard error, and a corresponding confidence interval for the corrected correlation. Monte Carlo simulation studies involving both normal and non-normal data were conducted to examine the empirical performance of the bootstrap and analytic methods. Results indicated that with both normal and non-normal data, the bootstrap standard error and confidence interval were generally accurate across simulation conditions (restricted sample size, selection ratio, and population correlations) and outperformed estimates of the analytic method. However, with certain combinations of distribution type and model conditions, the analytic method has an advantage, offering reasonable estimates of the standard error and confidence interval without resorting to the bootstrap procedure's computer-intensive approach. We provide SAS code for the simulation studies.     

基于概化理论的方差分量变异量估计

概化理论广泛应用于心理与教育测量实践中, 方差分量估计是进行概化理论分析的关键。方差分量估计受限于抽样, 需要对其变异量进行探讨。采用蒙特卡洛(Monte Carlo)数据模拟技术, 在正态分布下讨论不同方法对基于概化理论的方差分量变异量估计的影响。结果表明: Jackknife方法在方差分量变异量估计上不足取; 不采取Bootstrap方法的“分而治之”策略, 从总体上看, Traditional方法和有先验信息的MCMC方法在标准误及置信区间这两个变异量估计上优势明显。     

Confidence intervals for the parameters of psychometric functions

A Monte Carlo method for computing the bias and standard deviation of estimates of the parameters of a psychometric function such as the Weibull/Quick is described. The method, based on Efron's parametric bootstrap, can also be used to estimate confidence intervals for these parameters. The method's ability to predict bias, standard deviation, and confidence intervals is evaluated in two ways. First, its predictions are compared to the outcomes of Monte Carlo simulations of psychophysical experiments. Second, its predicted confidence intervals were compared with the actual variability of human observers in a psychophysical task. Computer programs implementing the method are available from the author.     

Nonparametric Estimation of Standard Errors in Covariance Analysis Using the Infinitesimal Jackknife

The infinitesimal jackknife provides a simple general method for estimating standard errors in covariance structure analysis. Beyond its simplicity and generality what makes the infinitesimal jackknife method attractive is that essentially no assumptions are required to produce consistent standard error estimates, not even the requirement that the population sampled has the covariance structure assumed. Commonly used covariance structure analysis software uses parametric methods for estimating parameters and standard errors. When the population sampled has the covariance structure assumed, but fails to have the distributional form assumed, the parameter estimates usually remain consistent, but the standard error estimates do not. This has motivated the introduction of a variety of nonparametric standard error estimates that are consistent when the population sampled fails to have the distributional form assumed. The only distributional assumption these require is that the covariance structure be correctly specified. As noted, even this assumption is not required for the infinitesimal jackknife. The relation between the infinitesimal jackknife and other nonparametric standard error estimators is discussed. An advantage of the infinitesimal jackknife over the jackknife and the bootstrap is that it requires only one analysis to produce standard error estimates rather than one for every jackknife or bootstrap sample.     

校正的Bootstrap方法对概化理论方差分量及其变异量估计的改善

Bootstrap方法是一种有放回的再抽样方法, 可用于概化理论的方差分量及其变异量估计。用Monte Carlo技术模拟四种分布数据, 分别是正态分布、二项分布、多项分布和偏态分布数据。基于p×i设计, 探讨校正的Bootstrap方法相对于未校正的Bootstrap方法, 是否改善了概化理论估计四种模拟分布数据的方差分量及其变异量。结果表明：跨越四种分布数据, 从整体到局部, 不论是“点估计”还是“变异量”估计, 校正的Bootstrap方法都要优于未校正的Bootstrap方法, 校正的Bootstrap方法改善了概化理论方差分量及其变异量估计。     

Out-of-bag Prediction Error: A Cross Validation Index for Generalized Structured Component Analysis

Cross validation is a useful way of comparing predictive generalizability of theoretically plausible a priori models in structural equation modeling (SEM). A number of overall or local cross validation indices have been proposed for existing factor-based and component-based approaches to SEM, including covariance structure analysis and partial least squares path modeling. However, there is no such cross validation index available for generalized structured component analysis (GSCA) which is another component-based approach. We thus propose a cross validation index for GSCA, called Out-of-bag Prediction Error (OPE), which estimates the expected prediction error of a model over replications of so-called in-bag and out-of-bag samples constructed through the implementation of the bootstrap method. The calculation of this index is well-suited to the estimation procedure of GSCA, which uses the bootstrap method to obtain the standard errors or confidence intervals of parameter estimates. We empirically evaluate the performance of the proposed index through the analyses of both simulated and real data.     

Bootstrap standard error and confidence intervals for the correlations corrected for indirect range restriction

The standard Pearson correlation coefficient, r, is a biased estimator of the population correlation coefficient, ρ(XY) , when predictor X and criterion Y are indirectly range-restricted by a third variable Z (or S). Two correction algorithms, Thorndike's (1949) Case III, and Schmidt, Oh, and Le's (2006) Case IV, have been proposed to correct for the bias. However, to our knowledge, the two algorithms did not provide a procedure to estimate the associated standard error and confidence intervals. This paper suggests using the bootstrap procedure as an alternative. Two Monte Carlo simulations were conducted to systematically evaluate the empirical performance of the proposed bootstrap procedure. The results indicated that the bootstrap standard error and confidence intervals were generally accurate across simulation conditions (e.g., selection ratio, sample size). The proposed bootstrap procedure can provide a useful alternative for the estimation of the standard error and confidence intervals for the correlation corrected for indirect range restriction.     

Effects of Differential Item Functioning on Examinees' Test Performance and Reliability of Test

Simulations were conducted to examine the effect of differential item functioning (DIF) on measurement consequences such as total scores, item response theory (IRT) ability estimates, and test reliability in terms of the ratio of true-score variance to observed-score variance and the standard error of estimation for the IRT ability parameter. The objective was to provide bounds of the likely DIF effects on these measurement consequences. Five factors were manipulated: test length, percentage of DIF items per form, item type, sample size, and level of group ability difference. Results indicate that the greatest DIF effect was less than 2 points on the 0 to 60 total score scale and about 0.15 on the IRT ability scale. DIF had a limited effect on the ratio of true-score variance to observed-score variance, but its influence on the standard error of estimation for the IRT ability parameter was evident for certain ability values.     

Estimating Standard Errors in Exploratory Factor Analysis

The article describes 6 issues influencing standard errors in exploratory factor analysis and reviews 7 methods of computing standard errors for rotated factor loadings and factor correlations. These 7 methods are the augmented information method, the nonparametric bootstrap method, the infinitesimal jackknife method, the method using the asymptotic distributions of unrotated factor loadings, the sandwich method, the parametric bootstrap method, and the jackknife method. Standard error estimates are illustrated using a personality study with 537 men and an intelligence study with 145 children.     

Standard errors in covariance structure models: Asymptotics versus bootstrap

Commonly used formulae for standard error (SE) estimates in covariance structure analysis are derived under the assumption of a correctly specified model. In practice, a model is at best only an approximation to the real world. It is important to know whether the estimates of SEs as provided by standard software are consistent when a model is misspecified, and to understand why if not. Bootstrap procedures provide nonparametric estimates of SEs that automatically account for distribution violation. It is also necessary to know whether bootstrap estimates of SEs are consistent. This paper studies the relationship between the bootstrap estimates of SEs and those based on asymptotics. Examples are used to illustrate various versions of asymptotic variance–covariance matrices and their validity. Conditions for the consistency of the bootstrap estimates of SEs are identified and discussed. Numerical examples are provided to illustrate the relationship of different estimates of SEs and covariance matrices.     

多级评分题计算机自适应测验选题策略比较

研究比较了多级评分题计算机化自适应测验五种选题策略的优劣。应用的IRT模型是Samejima的等级反应模型。参加比较的选题策略有难度均值与能力匹配法、难度中值与能力匹配法、信息量最大法和两种A分层法。比较指标采用了能力估计值返回真值偏差、能力估计标准差、人均用题数和试题调用次数标准差四个。研究采用蒙特卡罗模拟法,结果显示每种方法各有优劣,在分层得当情况下,A分层法(中)的综合效果最佳     

认知诊断模型的标准误与置信区间估计：并行自助法

认知诊断模型的标准误(Standard Error, SE; 或方差—协方差矩阵)与置信区间(Confidence Interval, CI)在模型参数估计不确定性的度量、项目功能差异检验、项目水平上的模型比较、Q矩阵检验以及探索属性层级关系等领域有重要的理论与实践价值。本研究提出了两种新的SE和CI计算方法：并行参数化自助法和并行非参数化自助法。模拟研究发现：模型完全正确设定时, 在高质量及中等质量项目条件下, 这两种方法在计算模型参数的SE和CI时均有好的表现; 模型参数存在冗余时, 在高质量及中等质量项目条件下, 对于大部分允许存在的模型参数而言, 其SE和CI有好的表现。通过实证数据展示了新方法的价值及计算效率提升效果。     

Detecting Outliers in Factor Analysis Using the Forward Search Algorithm

Dynamic factor analysis summarizes changes in scores on a battery of manifest variables over repeated measurements in terms of a time series in a substantially smaller number of latent factors. Algebraic formulae for standard errors of parameter estimates are more difficult to obtain than in the usual intersubject factor analysis because of the interdependence of successive observations. Bootstrap methods can fill this need, however. The standard bootstrap of individual timepoints is not appropriate because it destroys their order in time and consequently gives incorrect standard error estimates. Two bootstrap procedures that are appropriate for dynamic factor analysis are described. The moving block bootstrap breaks down the original time series into blocks and draws samples of blocks instead of individual timepoints. A parametric bootstrap is essentially a Monte Carlo study in which the population parameters are taken to be estimates obtained from the available sample. These bootstrap procedures are demonstrated using 103 days of affective mood self-ratings from a pregnant woman, 90 days of personality self-ratings from a psychology freshman, and a simulation study.     

Joint consistency of nonparametric item characteristic curve and ability estimation

The simultaneous and nonparametric estimation of latent abilities and item characteristic curves is considered. The asymptotic properties of ordinal ability estimation and kernel smoothed nonparametric item characteristic curve estimation are investigated under very general assumptions on the underlying item response theory model as both the test length and the sample size increase. A large deviation probability inequality is stated for ordinal ability estimation. The mean squared error of kernel smoothed item characteristic curve estimates is studied and a strong consistency result is obtained showing that the worst case error in the item characteristic curve estimates over all items and ability levels converges to zero with probability equal to one.     

测验同质性系数及其区间估计

在决定将多维测验分数合并成测验总分时, 应当考虑测验同质性。如果同质性太低, 合成总分没有什么意义。同质性高低可以用同质性系数来衡量。用来计算同质性系数的模型是近年来受到关注的双因子模型(既有全局因子又有局部因子), 测验的同质性系数定义为测验分数方差中全局因子分数方差所占的比例。本文用Delta法推导出计算同质性系数的标准误公式, 进而计算其置信区间。提供了简单的计算同质性系数及其置信区间的程序。用一个例子说明如何估计同质性系数及其置信区间, 通过模拟比较了用Delta法和用Bootstrap法计算的置信区间, 发现两者差异很小。     

Using a Response Time–Based Expected A Posteriori Estimator to Control for Differential Speededness in Computerized Adaptive Test

This study investigates using response times (RTs) with item responses in a computerized adaptive test (CAT) setting to enhance item selection and ability estimation and control for differential speededness. Using van der Linden’s hierarchical framework, an extended procedure for joint estimation of ability and speed parameters for use in CAT is developed following van der Linden; this is called the joint expected a posteriori estimator (J-EAP). It is shown that the J-EAP estimate of ability and speededness outperforms the standard maximum likelihood estimator (MLE) of ability and speededness in terms of correlation, root mean square error, and bias. It is further shown that under the maximum information per time unit item selection method (MICT)—a method which uses estimates for ability and speededness directly—using the J-EAP further reduces average examinee time spent and variability in test times between examinees above the resulting gains of this selection algorithm with the MLE while maintaining estimation efficiency. Simulated test results are further corroborated with test parameters derived from a real data example.     

Profile-likelihood Confidence Intervals in Item Response Theory Models

Confidence intervals (CIs) are fundamental inferential devices which quantify the sampling variability of parameter estimates. In item response theory, CIs have been primarily obtained from large-sample Wald-type approaches based on standard error estimates, derived from the observed or expected information matrix, after parameters have been estimated via maximum likelihood. An alternative approach to constructing CIs is to quantify sampling variability directly from the likelihood function with a technique known as profile-likelihood confidence intervals (PL CIs). In this article, we introduce PL CIs for item response theory models, compare PL CIs to classical large-sample Wald-type CIs, and demonstrate important distinctions among these CIs. CIs are then constructed for parameters directly estimated in the specified model and for transformed parameters which are often obtained post-estimation. Monte Carlo simulation results suggest that PL CIs perform consistently better than Wald-type CIs for both non-transformed and transformed parameters.     

On the Use of Nonparametric Regression in Assessing Parametric Regression Models

We develop a new method for assessing the adequacy of a smooth regression function based on nonparametric regression and the bootstrap. Our methodology allows users to detect systematic misfit and to test hypotheses of the form “the proposed smooth regression model is not significantly different from the smooth regression model that generated these data.” We also provide confidence bands on the location of nonparametric regression estimates assuming that the proposed regression function is true, allowing users to pinpoint regions of misfit. We illustrate the application of the new method, using local linear nonparametric regression, both where an error model is assumed and where the error model is an unknown non-stationary function of the predictor.     

Determining the significance of scale values from multidimensional scaling profile analysis using a resampling method

Although multidimensional scaling (MDS) profile analysis is widely used to study individual differences, there is no objective way to evaluate the statistical significance of the estimated scale values. In the present study, a resampling technique (bootstrapping) was used to construct confidence limits for scale values estimated from MDS profile analysis. These bootstrap confidence limits were used, in turn, to evaluate the significance of marker variables of the profiles. The results from analyses of both simulation data and real data suggest that the bootstrap method may be valid and may be used to evaluate hypotheses about the statistical significance of marker variables of MDS profiles.     

Abstract: Inference and Interval Estimation for Indirect Effects With Latent Variable Models

Models specifying indirect effects (or mediation) and structural equation modeling are both popular in the social sciences. Yet relatively little research has compared methods that test for indirect effects among latent variables and provided precise estimates of the effectiveness of different methods.

This simulation study provides an extensive comparison of methods for constructing confidence intervals and for making inferences about indirect effects with latent variables. We compared the percentile (PC) bootstrap, bias-corrected (BC) bootstrap, bias-corrected accelerated (BC _a ) bootstrap, likelihood-based confidence intervals (Neale & Miller, 1997), partial posterior predictive (Biesanz, Falk, and Savalei, 2010), and joint significance tests based on Wald tests or likelihood ratio tests. All models included three reflective latent variables representing the independent, dependent, and mediating variables. The design included the following fully crossed conditions: (a) sample size: 100, 200, and 500; (b) number of indicators per latent variable: 3 versus 5; (c) reliability per set of indicators: .7 versus .9; (d) and 16 different path combinations for the indirect effect (α = 0, .14, .39, or .59; and β = 0, .14, .39, or .59). Simulations were performed using a WestGrid cluster of 1680 3.06GHz Intel Xeon processors running R and OpenMx.

Results based on 1,000 replications per cell and 2,000 resamples per bootstrap method indicated that the BC and BC _a bootstrap methods have inflated Type I error rates. Likelihood-based confidence intervals and the PC bootstrap emerged as methods that adequately control Type I error and have good coverage rates.