scholarly journals Multiple imputation to balance unbalanced designs for two-way analysis of variance

Methodology ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 39-57
Author(s):  
Joost R. van Ginkel ◽  
Pieter M. Kroonenberg
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Imputation ◽  
Type I Error ◽  
Good Alternative ◽  
Error Rates ◽  
Sum Of Squares ◽  
Unbalanced Data ◽  
Type I ◽  
Type Iii ◽  
Unbalanced Designs ◽  
Multiply Imputed

A balanced ANOVA design provides an unambiguous interpretation of the F-tests, and has more power than an unbalanced design. In earlier literature, multiple imputation was proposed to create balance in unbalanced designs, as an alternative to Type-III sum of squares. In the current simulation study we studied four pooled statistics for multiple imputation, namely D₀, D₁, D₂, and D₃ in unbalanced data, and compared them with Type-III sum of squares. Statistics D₁ and D₂ generally performed best regarding Type-I error rates, and had power rates closest to that of Type-III sum of squares. Additionally, for the interaction, D₁ produced power rates higher than Type-III sum of squares. For multiply imputed datasets D₁ and D₂ may be the best methods for pooling the results in multiply imputed datasets, and for unbalanced data, D₁ might be a good alternative to Type-III sum of squares regarding the interaction.

scholarly journals Much ado about nothing: Multiple imputation to balance unbalanced designs for two-way analysis of variance

Methodology ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 335-353
Author(s):  
Joost R. van Ginkel ◽  
Pieter M. Kroonenberg
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Imputation ◽  
Type I Error ◽  
Error Rates ◽  
Sum Of Squares ◽  
Unbalanced Data ◽  
Type I ◽  
Type Iii ◽  
Much Ado About Nothing ◽  
Unbalanced Designs ◽  
Multiply Imputed

In earlier literature, multiple imputation was proposed to create balance in unbalanced designs, as an alternative to Type III sum of squares in two-way ANOVA. In the current simulation study we studied four pooled statistics for multiple imputation, namely D₀, D₁, D₂, and D₃ in unbalanced data, and compared these statistics with Type III sum of squares. Statistics D₀ and D₂ generally performed best regarding Type-I error rates, and had power rates closest to that of Type III sum of squares. However, none of the statistics produced power rates higher than Type III sum of squares. The results lead to the conclusion that for multiply imputed datasets D₀ and D₂ may be the best methods for pooling the results of multiparameter estimates in multiply imputed datasets, and that for unbalanced data, Type III sum of square is to be preferred over using multiple imputation in obtaining ANOVA results.

Correction: “Influence of Selection Bias on the Test Decision – A Simulation Study”

2014 ◽  
Vol 53 (05) ◽  
pp. 343-343
Keyword(s):  
Selection Bias ◽  
Simulation Study ◽  
Error Rate ◽  
Type I Error ◽  
Block Size ◽  
Error Rates ◽  
Type I ◽  
Type I Error Rate ◽  
Representation Error ◽  
Numeric Representation

We have to report marginal changes in the empirical type I error rates for the cut-offs 2/3 and 4/7 of Table 4, Table 5 and Table 6 of the paper “Influence of Selection Bias on the Test Decision – A Simulation Study” by M. Tamm, E. Cramer, L. N. Kennes, N. Heussen (Methods Inf Med 2012; 51: 138 –143). In a small number of cases the kind of representation of numeric values in SAS has resulted in wrong categorization due to a numeric representation error of differences. We corrected the simulation by using the round function of SAS in the calculation process with the same seeds as before. For Table 4 the value for the cut-off 2/3 changes from 0.180323 to 0.153494. For Table 5 the value for the cut-off 4/7 changes from 0.144729 to 0.139626 and the value for the cut-off 2/3 changes from 0.114885 to 0.101773. For Table 6 the value for the cut-off 4/7 changes from 0.125528 to 0.122144 and the value for the cut-off 2/3 changes from 0.099488 to 0.090828. The sentence on p. 141 “E.g. for block size 4 and q = 2/3 the type I error rate is 18% (Table 4).” has to be replaced by “E.g. for block size 4 and q = 2/3 the type I error rate is 15.3% (Table 4).”. There were only minor changes smaller than 0.03. These changes do not affect the interpretation of the results or our recommendations.

The Use of Theory of Linear Mixed-Effects Models to Detect Fraudulent Erasures at an Aggregate Level

2021 ◽  
pp. 001316442199489
Author(s):  
Luyao Peng ◽  
Sandip Sinharay
Keyword(s):  
Type I Error ◽  
Real Data ◽  
Mixed Effects ◽  
Error Rates ◽  
Mixed Effects Models ◽  
Type I ◽  
Aggregate Level ◽  
Linear Mixed Effects Models ◽  
Linear Mixed Effects ◽  
Best Linear Unbiased

Wollack et al. (2015) suggested the erasure detection index (EDI) for detecting fraudulent erasures for individual examinees. Wollack and Eckerly (2017) and Sinharay (2018) extended the index of Wollack et al. (2015) to suggest three EDIs for detecting fraudulent erasures at the aggregate or group level. This article follows up on the research of Wollack and Eckerly (2017) and Sinharay (2018) and suggests a new aggregate-level EDI by incorporating the empirical best linear unbiased predictor from the literature of linear mixed-effects models (e.g., McCulloch et al., 2008). A simulation study shows that the new EDI has larger power than the indices of Wollack and Eckerly (2017) and Sinharay (2018). In addition, the new index has satisfactory Type I error rates. A real data example is also included.

The Robustness of the Likelihood Ratio Chi-Square Test for Structural Equation Models: A Meta-Analysis

2001 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 105-132 ◽  
Author(s):  
Douglas A. Powell ◽  
William D. Schafer
Keyword(s):  
Structural Equation ◽  
Structural Equation Models ◽  
Type I Error ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Generalized Least Squares ◽  
Error Rates ◽  
Type I ◽  
Chi Square ◽  
Distribution Free ◽  
Projection Techniques

The robustness literature for the structural equation model was synthesized following the method of Harwell which employs meta-analysis as developed by Hedges and Vevea. The study focused on the explanation of empirical Type I error rates for six principal classes of estimators: two that assume multivariate normality (maximum likelihood and generalized least squares), elliptical estimators, two distribution-free estimators (asymptotic and others), and latent projection. Generally, the chi-square tests for overall model fit were found to be sensitive to non-normality and the size of the model for all estimators (with the possible exception of the elliptical estimators with respect to model size and the latent projection techniques with respect to non-normality). The asymptotic distribution-free (ADF) and latent projection techniques were also found to be sensitive to sample sizes. Distribution-free methods other than ADF showed, in general, much less sensitivity to all factors considered.

scholarly journals Control of Type I Error Rates in Bayesian Sequential Designs

2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 399-425 ◽  
Author(s):  
Haolun Shi ◽  
Guosheng Yin
Keyword(s):  
Type I Error ◽  
Error Rates ◽  
Type I ◽  
Sequential Designs ◽  
Type I Error Rates

scholarly journals Sisvar: a Guide for its Bootstrap procedures in multiple comparisons

2014 ◽  
Vol 38 (2) ◽  
pp. 109-112 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Furtado Ferreira
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Community ◽  
Type I Error ◽  
Multiple Comparisons ◽  
Error Rates ◽  
Type I ◽  
Type I Error Rates ◽  
Statistical Analysis System ◽  
Scientific Results ◽  
Analysis System ◽  
Multiple Comparison Procedures

Sisvar is a statistical analysis system with a large usage by the scientific community to produce statistical analyses and to produce scientific results and conclusions. The large use of the statistical procedures of Sisvar by the scientific community is due to it being accurate, precise, simple and robust. With many options of analysis, Sisvar has a not so largely used analysis that is the multiple comparison procedures using bootstrap approaches. This paper aims to review this subject and to show some advantages of using Sisvar to perform such analysis to compare treatments means. Tests like Dunnett, Tukey, Student-Newman-Keuls and Scott-Knott are performed alternatively by bootstrap methods and show greater power and better controls of experimentwise type I error rates under non-normal, asymmetric, platykurtic or leptokurtic distributions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document