Problematic standard errors and confidence intervals for skewness and kurtosis

Many statistics packages print skewness and kurtosis statistics with estimates of their standard errors. The function most often used for the standard errors (e.g., in SPSS) assumes that the data are drawn from a normal distribution, an unlikely situation. Some textbooks suggest that if the statistic is more than about 2 standard errors from the hypothesized value (i.e., an approximate value for the critical value from the t distribution for moderate or large sample sizes when α = 5%), the hypothesized value can be rejected. This is an inappropriate practice unless the standard error estimate is accurate and the sampling distribution is approximately normal. We show distributions where the traditional standard errors provided by the function underestimate the actual values, often being 5 times too small, and distributions where the function overestimates the true values. Bootstrap standard errors and confidence intervals are more accurate than the traditional approach, although still imperfect. The reasons for this are discussed. We recommend that if you are using skewness and kurtosis statistics based on the 3^rd and 4^th moments, bootstrapping should be used to calculate standard errors and confidence intervals, rather than using the traditional standard. Software in the freeware R for this article provides these estimates.     

Four applications of permutation methods to testing a single-mediator model

Four applications of permutation tests to the single-mediator model are described and evaluated in this study. Permutation tests work by rearranging data in many possible ways in order to estimate the sampling distribution for the test statistic. The four applications to mediation evaluated here are the permutation test of ab, the permutation joint significance test, and the noniterative and iterative permutation confidence intervals for ab. A Monte Carlo simulation study was used to compare these four tests with the four best available tests for mediation found in previous research: the joint significance test, the distribution of the product test, and the percentile and bias-corrected bootstrap tests. We compared the different methods on Type I error, power, and confidence interval coverage. The noniterative permutation confidence interval for ab was the best performer among the new methods. It successfully controlled Type I error, had power nearly as good as the most powerful existing methods, and had better coverage than any existing method. The iterative permutation confidence interval for ab had lower power than do some existing methods, but it performed better than any other method in terms of coverage. The permutation confidence interval methods are recommended when estimating a confidence interval is a primary concern. SPSS and SAS macros that estimate these confidence intervals are provided.     

Constructing Confidence Intervals for Effect Size Measures of an Indirect Effect

Confidence intervals for an effect size can provide the information about the magnitude of an effect and its precision as well as the binary decision about the existence of an effect. In this study, the performances of five different methods for constructing confidence intervals for ratio effect size measures of an indirect effect were compared in terms of power, coverage rates, Type I error rates, and widths of confidence intervals. The five methods include the percentile bootstrap method, the bias-corrected and accelerated (BCa) bootstrap method, the delta method, the Fieller method, and the Monte Carlo method. The results were discussed with respect to the adequacy of the distributional assumptions and the nature of ratio quantity. The confidence intervals from the five methods showed similar results for samples of more than 500, whereas, for samples of less than 500, the confidence intervals were sufficiently narrow to convey the information about the population effect sizes only when the effect sizes of regression coefficients defining the indirect effect are large.     

Distribution of the product confidence limits for the indirect effect: Program PRODCLIN

This article describes a program, PRODCLIN (distribution of the PRODuct Confidence Limits for INdirect effects), written for SAS, SPSS, and R, that computes confidence limits for the product of two normal random variables. The program is important because it can be used to obtain more accurate confidence limits for the indirect effect, as demonstrated in several recent articles (MacKinnon, Lockwood, & Williams, 2004; Pituch, Whittaker, & Stapleton, 2005). Tests of the significance of and confidence limits for indirect effects based on the distribution of the product method have more accurate Type I error rates and more power than other, more commonly used tests. Values for the two paths involved in the indirect effect and their standard errors are entered in the PRODCLIN program, and distribution of the product confidence limits are computed. Several examples are used to illustrate the PRODCLIN program. The PRODCLIN programs in rich text format may be downloaded from www.psychonomic.org/archive.     

Confidence intervals and sample size calculations for the standardized mean difference effect size between two normal populations under heteroscedasticity

The use of effect sizes and associated confidence intervals in all empirical research has been strongly emphasized by journal publication guidelines. To help advance theory and practice in the social sciences, this article describes an improved procedure for constructing confidence intervals of the standardized mean difference effect size between two independent normal populations with unknown and possibly unequal variances. The presented approach has advantages over the existing formula in both theoretical justification and computational simplicity. In addition, simulation results show that the suggested one- and two-sided confidence intervals are more accurate in achieving the nominal coverage probability. The proposed estimation method provides a feasible alternative to the most commonly used measure of Cohen’s d and the corresponding interval procedure when the assumption of homogeneous variances is not tenable. To further improve the potential applicability of the suggested methodology, the sample size procedures for precise interval estimation of the standardized mean difference are also delineated. The desired precision of a confidence interval is assessed with respect to the control of expected width and to the assurance probability of interval width within a designated value. Supplementary computer programs are developed to aid in the usefulness and implementation of the introduced techniques.     

Comparison of methods for constructing confidence intervals of standardized indirect effects

Mediation models are often used as a means to explain the psychological mechanisms between an independent and a dependent variable in the behavioral and social sciences. A major limitation of the unstandardized indirect effect calculated from raw scores is that it cannot be interpreted as an effect-size measure. In contrast, the standardized indirect effect calculated from standardized scores can be a good candidate as a measure of effect size because it is scale invariant. In the present article, 11 methods for constructing the confidence intervals (CIs) of the standardized indirect effects were evaluated via a computer simulation. These included six Wald CIs, three bootstrap CIs, one likelihood-based CI, and the PRODCLIN CI. The results consistently showed that the percentile bootstrap, the bias-corrected bootstrap, and the likelihood-based approaches had the best coverage probability. Mplus, LISREL, and Mx syntax were included to facilitate the use of these preferred methods in applied settings. Future issues on the use of the standardized indirect effects are discussed.     

Constructing second‐order accurate confidence intervals for communalities in factor analysis

In an effort to find accurate alternatives to the usual confidence intervals based on normal approximations, this paper compares four methods of generating second‐order accurate confidence intervals for non‐standardized and standardized communalities in exploratory factor analysis under the normality assumption. The methods to generate the intervals employ, respectively, the Cornish–Fisher expansion and the approximate bootstrap confidence (ABC), and the bootstrap‐t and the bias‐corrected and accelerated bootstrap (BC_a). The former two are analytical and the latter two are numerical. Explicit expressions of the asymptotic bias and skewness of the communality estimators, used in the analytical methods, are derived. A Monte Carlo experiment reveals that the performance of central intervals based on normal approximations is a consequence of imbalance of miscoverage on the left‐ and right‐hand sides. The second‐order accurate intervals do not require symmetry around the point estimates of the usual intervals and achieve better balance, even when the sample size is not large. The behaviours of the second‐order accurate intervals were similar to each other, particularly for large sample sizes, and no method performed consistently better than the others.     

中介效应的三类区间估计方法

由于中介效应ab的估计量通常不是正态分布, 因此需用不对称置信区间进行中介效应分析。详述了三类获得不对称置信区间的方法, 包括乘积分布法(M法和经验M法)、Bootstrap方法(偏差校正和未校正的非参数百分位Bootstrap方法、偏差校正和未校正的参数百分位残差Bootstrap方法)和马尔科夫链蒙特卡罗(MCMC)方法。比较了三类方法在单层(简单和多重)和多层中介效应分析中的表现, 发现三类方法的表现相近, 与乘积分布法相比, 偏差校正的百分位Bootstrap方法表现较好, 但有先验信息的MCMC方法能更有效降低均方误。最后对中介效应不对称置信区间研究的拓展方向做了展望。     

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.     

Second-Order Probability Matching Priors for the Person Parameter in Unidimensional IRT Models

Psychometrika - In applications of item response theory (IRT), it is often of interest to compute confidence intervals (CIs) for person parameters with prescribed frequentist coverage. The...     

The new and improved two-sample T test

Abstract This article considers the problem of comparing two independent groups in terms of some measure of location. It is well known that with Student's two-independent-sample t test, the actual level of significance can be well above or below the nominal level, confidence intervals can have inaccurate probability coverage, and power can be low relative to other methods. A solution to deal with heterogeneity is Welch's (1938) test. Welch's test deals with heteroscedasticity but can have poor power under arbitrarily small departures from normality. Yuen (1974) generalized Welch's test to trimmed means; her method provides improved control over the probability of a Type I error, but problems remain. Transformations for skewness improve matters, but the probability of a Type I error remains unsatisfactory in some situations. We find that a transformation for skewness combined with a bootstrap method improves Type I error control and probability coverage even if sample sizes are small.     

Fisher transformation based confidence intervals of correlations in fixed- and random-effects meta-analysis

Meta-analyses of correlation coefficients are an important technique to integrate results from many cross-sectional and longitudinal research designs. Uncertainty in pooled estimates is typically assessed with the help of confidence intervals, which can double as hypothesis tests for two-sided hypotheses about the underlying correlation. A standard approach to construct confidence intervals for the main effect is the Hedges-Olkin-Vevea Fisher-z (HOVz) approach, which is based on the Fisher-z transformation. Results from previous studies (Field, 2005, Psychol. Meth., 10, 444; Hafdahl and Williams, 2009, Psychol. Meth., 14, 24), however, indicate that in random-effects models the performance of the HOVz confidence interval can be unsatisfactory. To this end, we propose improvements of the HOVz approach, which are based on enhanced variance estimators for the main effect estimate. In order to study the coverage of the new confidence intervals in both fixed- and random-effects meta-analysis models, we perform an extensive simulation study, comparing them to established approaches. Data were generated via a truncated normal and beta distribution model. The results show that our newly proposed confidence intervals based on a Knapp-Hartung-type variance estimator or robust heteroscedasticity consistent sandwich estimators in combination with the integral z-to-r transformation (Hafdahl, 2009, Br. J. Math. Stat. Psychol., 62, 233) provide more accurate coverage than existing approaches in most scenarios, especially in the more appropriate beta distribution simulation model.     

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。     

Evaluating the performance of different procedures for constructing confidence intervals for coefficient alpha: A simulation study

Reliability is one of the most important aspects of testing in educational and psychological measurement. The construction of confidence intervals for reliability coefficients has important implications for evaluating the accuracy of the sample estimate of reliability and for comparing different tests, scoring rubrics, or training procedures for raters or observers. The present simulation study evaluated and compared various parametric and non-parametric methods for constructing confidence intervals of coefficient alpha. Six factors were manipulated: number of items, number of subjects, population coefficient alpha, deviation from essentially parallel condition, item response distribution and type. The coverage and width of different confidence intervals were compared across simulation conditions.     

Asymptotic confidence intervals for the Pearson correlation via skewness and kurtosis

When bivariate normality is violated, the default confidence interval of the Pearson correlation can be inaccurate. Two new methods were developed based on the asymptotic sampling distribution of Fisher's z′ under the general case where bivariate normality need not be assumed. In Monte Carlo simulations, the most successful of these methods relied on the (Vale & Maurelli, 1983, Psychometrika, 48, 465) family to approximate a distribution via the marginal skewness and kurtosis of the sample data. In Simulation 1, this method provided more accurate confidence intervals of the correlation in non-normal data, at least as compared to no adjustment of the Fisher z′ interval, or to adjustment via the sample joint moments. In Simulation 2, this approximate distribution method performed favourably relative to common non-parametric bootstrap methods, but its performance was mixed relative to an observed imposed bootstrap and two other robust methods (PM1 and HC4). No method was completely satisfactory. An advantage of the approximate distribution method, though, is that it can be implemented even without access to raw data if sample skewness and kurtosis are reported, making the method particularly useful for meta-analysis. Supporting information includes R code.     

Ordinal data,ordered scale points,and order statistics

This paper concerns ordinal responses. An ordered Dirichlet distribution describes prior and posterior beliefs about the cumulative probabilities of response categories. Associating the response categories with intervals of a latent random variable then induces a distribution on the order statistics of that variable. The psychometrician can use the asymptotic theory of order statistics to learn how distributional assumptions about the latent variable effect inference. An example relates the skewness of a latent variable to the proportional odds and proportional hazards models of McCullagh [1980].     

An alternative to Cohen's standardized mean difference effect size: a robust parameter and confidence interval in the two independent groups case

The authors argue that a robust version of Cohen's effect size constructed by replacing population means with 20% trimmed means and the population standard deviation with the square root of a 20% Winsorized variance is a better measure of population separation than is Cohen's effect size. The authors investigated coverage probability for confidence intervals for the new effect size measure. The confidence intervals were constructed by using the noncentral t distribution and the percentile bootstrap. Over the range of distributions and effect sizes investigated in the study, coverage probability was better for the percentile bootstrap confidence interval.     

The UMP Exact Test and the Confidence Interval for Person Parameters in IRT Models

In educational and psychological measurement when short test forms are used, the asymptotic normality of the maximum likelihood estimator of the person parameter of item response models does not hold. As a result, hypothesis tests or confidence intervals of the person parameter based on the normal distribution are likely to be problematic. Inferences based on the exact distribution, on the other hand, do not suffer from this limitation. However, the computation involved for the exact distribution approach is often prohibitively expensive. In this paper, we propose a general framework for constructing hypothesis tests and confidence intervals for IRT models within the exponential family based on exact distribution. In addition, an efficient branch and bound algorithm for calculating the exact p value is introduced. The type-I error rate and statistical power of the proposed exact test as well as the coverage rate and the lengths of the associated confidence interval are examined through a simulation. We also demonstrate its practical use by analyzing three real data sets.     

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.     

RMediation: An R package for mediation analysis confidence intervals

This article describes the RMediation package,which offers various methods for building confidence intervals (CIs) for mediated effects. The mediated effect is the product of two regression coefficients. The distribution-of-the-product method has the best statistical performance of existing methods for building CIs for the mediated effect. RMediation produces CIs using methods based on the distribution of product, Monte Carlo simulations, and an asymptotic normal distribution. Furthermore, RMediation generates percentiles, quantiles, and the plot of the distribution and CI for the mediated effect. An existing program, called PRODCLIN, published in Behavior Research Methods, has been widely cited and used by researchers to build accurate CIs. PRODCLIN has several limitations: The program is somewhat cumbersome to access and yields no result for several cases. RMediation described herein is based on the widely available R software, includes several capabilities not available in PRODCLIN, and provides accurate results that PRODCLIN could not.