Comparing one-step M-estimators of location when there are more than two groups

Methods for comparing means are known to be highly nonrobust in terms of Type II errors. The problem is that slight shifts from normal distributions toward heavy-tailed distributions inflate the standard error of the sample mean. In contrast, the standard error of various robust measures of location, such as the one-step M-estimator, are relatively unaffected by heavy tails. Wilcox recently examined a method of comparing the one-step M-estimators of location corresponding to two independent groups which provided good control over the probability of a Type I error even for unequal sample sizes, unequal variances, and different shaped distributions. There is a fairly obvious extension of this procedure to pairwise comparisons of more than two independent groups, but simulations reported here indicate that it is unsatisfactory. A slight modification of the procedure is found to give much better results, although some caution must be taken when there are unequal sample sizes and light-tailed distributions. An omnibus test is examined as well.     

Factor analysis for non-normal variables

Factor analysis for nonnormally distributed variables is discussed in this paper. The main difference between our approach and more traditional approaches is that not only second order cross-products (like covariances) are utilized, but also higher order cross-products. It turns out that under some conditions the parameters (factor loadings) can be uniquely determined. Two estimation procedures will be discussed. One method gives Best Generalized Least Squares (BGLS) estimates, but is computationally very heavy, in particular for large data sets. The other method is a least squares method which is computationally less heavy. In one example the two methods will be compared by using the bootstrap method. In another example real life data are analyzed.This paper has partly been written while the author was a visiting scholar at the Department of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles. He wants to thank Peter Bentler who made this stay at UCLA possible and for his valuable contributions to this paper. This research was supported by the Netherlands Organization for the Advancement of Pure Research (Z.W.O) under number R56-150 and by USPHS Grant DA01070.     

Bounds on variances of estimators for multinomial processing tree models

When there are order constraints among the parameters of a binary, multinomial processing tree (MPT) model, methods have been developed for reparameterizing the constrained MPT into an equivalent unconstrained MPT. This note provides a theorem that is useful in computing bounds on the estimator variances for the parameters of the constrained model in terms of estimator variances of the parameters of the unconstrained model. In particular, we show that if X and Y are random variables taking values in [0,1], then Var[XY]?2(Var[X]+Var[Y]).     

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.     

Comparing one-step m-estimators of location corresponding to two independent groups

Experience with real data indicates that psychometric measures often have heavy-tailed distributions. This is known to be a serious problem when comparing the means of two independent groups because heavy-tailed distributions can have a serious effect on power. Another problem that is common in some areas is outliers. This paper suggests an approach to these problems based on the one-step M-estimator of location. Simulations indicate that the new procedure provides very good control over the probability of a Type I error even when distributions are skewed, have different shapes, and the variances are unequal. Moreover, the new procedure has considerably more power than Welch's method when distributions have heavy tails, and it compares well to Yuen's method for comparing trimmed means. Wilcox's median procedure has about the same power as the proposed procedure, but Wilcox's method is based on a statistic that has a finite sample breakdown point of only 1/n, wheren is the sample size. Comments on other methods for comparing groups are also included.     

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。     

认知诊断属性分类一致性信度区间估计三种方法

摘要：引入了三种可以估计认知诊断属性分类一致性信度置信区间的方法：Bootstrap法、平行测验法和平行测验配对法。用模拟研究验证和比较了这三种方法的表现,结果发现,平行测验法和Bootstrap法在被试量比较少、题目数量比较少的情况下,估计的标准误和置信区间较接近,但是随着被试量的增加,Bootstrap法的估计精度提高较快,在被试量大和题目数量较多时基本接近平行测验配对法的结果。Bootstrap法的所需时间最少,平行测验配对法计算过程复杂且用时较长,推荐用Bootstrap法估计认知诊断属性分类一致性信度的置信区间。     

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。