On the sampling interpretation of confidence intervals and hypothesis tests in the context of conditional maximum likelihood estimation

In the context ofconditional maximum likelihood (CML) estimation, confidence intervals can be interpreted in three different ways, depending on the sampling distribution under which these confidence intervals contain the true parameter value with a certain probability. These sampling distributions are (a) the distribution of the data given theincidental parameters, (b) the marginal distribution of the data (i.e., with the incidental parameters integrated out), and (c) the conditional distribution of the data given the sufficient statistics for the incidental parameters. Results on the asymptotic distribution of CML estimates under sampling scheme (c) can be used to construct asymptotic confidence intervals using only the CML estimates. This is not possible for the results on the asymptotic distribution under sampling schemes (a) and (b). However, it is shown that theconditional asymptotic confidence intervals are also valid under the other two sampling schemes. I am indebted to Theo Eggen, Norman Verhelst and one of Psychometrika's reviewers for their helpful comments.     

bootstrap法在合成分数信度区间估计中的应用

在介绍bootstrap法原理的基础上,本文以一个同质测量模式的模拟数据为例,对结构方程模型下使用bootstrap法对合成分数信度的区间估计的应用中进行了演示。     

The regression trunk approach to discover treatment covariate interaction

The regression trunk approach (RTA) is an integration of regression trees and multiple linear regression analysis. In this paper RTA is used to discover treatment covariate interactions, in the regression of one continuous variable on a treatment variable withmultiple covariates. The performance of RTA is compared to the classical method of forward stepwise regression. The results of two simulation studies, in which the true interactions are modeled as threshold interactions, show that RTA detects the interactions in a higher number of cases (82.3% in the first simulation study, and 52.3% in the second) than stepwise regression (56.5% and 20.5%). In a real data example the final RTA model has a higher cross-validated variance-accounted-for (29.8%) than the stepwise regression model (12.5%). All of these results indicate that RTA is a promising alternative method for demonstrating differential effectiveness of treatments. Supported by The Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO), grant 030-56403 to Jacqueline Meulman for the Pioneer project “Subject-Oriented Multivariate Analysis,” and grant 451-02-058 to Elise Dusseldorp for the Veni project “Modeling interaction effects as small trees in regression and classification.” We thank Bram Bakker for making the data of his doctoral dissertation available, and David Hand, Jerome Friedman, Bart Jan van Os, Philip Spinhoven, and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful suggestions. Special thanks are due to Lawrence Hubert.     

Approximate interval estimation for a certain intraclass correlation coefficient

When the raters participating in a reliability study are a random sample from a larger population of raters, inferences about the intraclass correlation coefficient must be based on the three mean squares from the analysis of variance table summarizing the results: between subjects, between raters, and error. An approximate confidence interval for the parameter is presented as a function of these three mean squares.Dr. Fleiss is also with the Biometrics Research Unit of the New York State Psychiatric Institute. This work was supported in part by grant DE 04068 from the National Institute of Dental Research.     

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。     

On the analysis of studies of choice

In a review of 103 sets of data from 23 different studies of choice, Baum (1979) concluded that whereas undermatching was most commonly observed for responses, the time measure generally conformed to the matching relation. A reexamination of the evidence presented by Baum concludes that undermatching is the most commonly observed finding for both measures. Use of the coefficient of determination by both Baum (1979) and de Villiers (1977) for assessing when matching occurs is criticized on statistical grounds. An alternative to the loss-in-predictability criterion used by Baum (1979) is proposed. This alternative statistic has a simple operational meaning and is related to the usual F-ratio test. It can therefore be used as a formal test of the hypothesis that matching occurs. Baum (1979) also suggests that slope values of between .90 and 1.11 can be considered good approximations to matching. It is argued that the establishment of a fixed interval as a criterion for determining when matching occurs, is inappropriate. A confidence interval based on the data from any given experiment is suggested as a more useful method of assessment.     

Bias-corrected estimation of the Rudas–Clogg–Lindsay mixture index of fit

Rudas, Clogg, and Lindsay (1994, J. R Stat Soc. Ser. B, 56, 623) introduced the so-called mixture index of fit, also known as pi-star (π*), for quantifying the goodness of fit of a model. It is the lowest proportion of ‘contamination’ which, if removed from the population or from the sample, makes the fit of the model perfect. The mixture index of fit has been widely used in psychometric studies. We show that the asymptotic confidence limits proposed by Rudas et al. (1994, J. R Stat Soc. Ser. B, 56, 623) as well as the jackknife confidence interval by Dayton ( 2003 , Br. J. Math. Stat. Psychol., 56, 1) perform poorly, and propose a new bias-corrected point estimate, a bootstrap test and confidence limits for pi-star. The proposed confidence limits have coverage probability much closer to the nominal level than the other methods do. We illustrate the usefulness of the proposed method in practice by presenting some practical applications to log-linear models for contingency tables.     

Application of the bootstrap methods in factor analysis

A Monte Carlo experiment is conducted to investigate the performance of the bootstrap methods in normal theory maximum likelihood factor analysis both when the distributional assumption is satisfied and unsatisfied. The parameters and their functions of interest include unrotated loadings, analytically rotated loadings, and unique variances. The results reveal that (a) bootstrap bias estimation performs sometimes poorly for factor loadings and nonstandardized unique variances; (b) bootstrap variance estimation performs well even when the distributional assumption is violated; (c) bootstrap confidence intervals based on the Studentized statistics are recommended; (d) if structural hypothesis about the population covariance matrix is taken into account then the bootstrap distribution of the normal theory likelihood ratio test statistic is close to the corresponding sampling distribution with slightly heavier right tail.This study was carried out in part under the ISM cooperative research program (91-ISM · CRP-85, 92-ISM · CRP-102). The authors would like to thank the editor and three reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions which improved the quality of this paper considerably.     

On approximate confidence intervals for measures of concordance

The use ofU-statistics based on rank correlation coefficients in estimating the strength of concordance among a group of rankers is examined for cases where the null hypothesis of random rankings is not tenable. The studentizedU-statistics is asymptotically distribution-free, and the Student-t approximation is used for small and moderate sized samples. An approximate confidence interval is constructed for the strength of concordance. Monte Carlo results indicate that the Student-t approximation can be improved by estimating the degrees of freedom.Research partially supported on ONR Contract N00014-82-K-0207.