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.     

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.     

Probability-of-coverage tolerance intervals for the beta binomial

True score tolerance intervals, which are designed to cover a chosen proportion of the conditional distribution of true scores given an observed score, are suggested as alternatives to true score confidence intervals. Using large sample theory, a tolerance interval estimator for the beta binomial is derived. An example indicates that with moderate sample sizes, tolerance intervals with high probability of coverage will not be much wider than when the two beta true score parameters are known.The author acknowledges valuable comments from Richard Sawyer.Most work was completed while the author was at the American College Testing Program.     

Contrast effects in multiple fixed-interval reinforcement schedules

Pigeons were exposed to a multiple fixed-interval one-minute fixed-interval three-minute schedule of reinforcement following training on either a multiple fixed-interval one-minute fixed-interval one-minute schedule or a multiple fixed-interval three-minute fixed-interval three-minute schedule. For all birds, large negative local contrast effects developed during the first of four three-minute intervals in a component; response rate was depressed and postreinforcement pause lengthened in this interval. Positive local contrast effects were evident during the first of 12 one-minute intervals in a component for five of six birds; at asymptote, the pause was very short and response rate slightly elevated during this interval. Overall positive contrast was generally transient and varied considerably across subjects, while overall negative contrast effects, if they occurred, appeared only after a large number of sessions.     

The effects of interval duration on temporal tracking and alternation learning

On cyclic-interval reinforcement schedules, animals typically show a postreinforcement pause that is a function of the immediately preceding time interval (temporal tracking). Animals, however, do not track single-alternation schedules-when two different intervals are presented in strict alternation on successive trials. In this experiment, pigeons were first trained with a cyclic schedule consisting of alternating blocks of 12 short intervals (5 s or 30 s) and 12 long intervals (180 s), followed by three different single-alternation interval schedules: (a) 30 s and 180 s, (b) 5 s and 180 s, and (c) 5 s and 30 s. Pigeons tracked both schedules with alternating blocks of 12 intervals. With the single-alternation schedules, when the short interval duration was 5 s, regardless of the duration of the longer interval, pigeons learned the alternation pattern, and their pause anticipated the upcoming interval. When the shorter interval was 30 s, even when the ratio of short to long intervals was kept at 6:1, pigeons did not initially show anticipatory pausing-a violation of the principle of timescale invariance.     

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.     

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.     

Reliability coefficients for multiple group item response theory models

Reliability of scores from psychological or educational assessments provides important information regarding the precision of measurement. The reliability of scores is however population dependent and may vary across groups. In item response theory, this population dependence can be attributed to differential item functioning or to differences in the latent distributions between groups and needs to be accounted for when estimating the reliability of scores for different groups. Here, we introduce group-specific and overall reliability coefficients for sum scores and maximum likelihood ability estimates defined by a multiple group item response theory model. We derive confidence intervals using asymptotic theory and evaluate the empirical properties of estimators and the confidence intervals in a simulation study. The results show that the estimators are largely unbiased and that the confidence intervals are accurate with moderately large sample sizes. We exemplify the approach with the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) in two groups defined by education level and give recommendations for applied work.