Catalogue Search | MBRL
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
{{itemTitle}}
131,972
result(s) for
"Confidence Intervals"
Sort by:
The Bayesian New Statistics: Hypothesis testing, estimation, meta-analysis, and power analysis from a Bayesian perspective
In the practice of data analysis, there is a conceptual distinction between hypothesis testing, on the one hand, and estimation with quantified uncertainty on the other. Among frequentists in psychology, a shift of emphasis from hypothesis testing to estimation has been dubbed “the New Statistics” (Cumming
2014
). A second conceptual distinction is between frequentist methods and Bayesian methods. Our main goal in this article is to explain how Bayesian methods achieve the goals of the New Statistics better than frequentist methods. The article reviews frequentist and Bayesian approaches to hypothesis testing and to estimation with confidence or credible intervals. The article also describes Bayesian approaches to meta-analysis, randomized controlled trials, and power analysis.
Journal Article
Cronbach's alpha reliability: Interval estimation, hypothesis testing, and sample size planning
Cronbach’s alpha is one of the most widely used measures of reliability in the social and organizational sciences. Current practice is to report the sample value of Cronbach’s alpha reliability, but a confidence interval for the population reliability value also should be reported. The traditional confidence interval for the population value of Cronbach’s alpha makes an unnecessarily restrictive assumption that the multiple measurements have equal variances and equal covariances. We propose a confidence interval that does not require equal variances or equal covariances. The results of a simulation study demonstrated that the proposed method performed better than alternative methods. We also present some sample size formulas that approximate the sample size requirements for desired power or desired confidence interval precision. R functions are provided that can be used to implement the proposed confidence interval and sample size methods.
Journal Article
Confidence intervals for low dimensional parameters in high dimensional linear models
The purpose of this paper is to propose methodologies for statistical inference of low dimensional parameters with high dimensional data. We focus on constructing confidence intervals for individual coefficients and linear combinations of several of them in a linear regression model, although our ideas are applicable in a much broader context. The theoretical results that are presented provide sufficient conditions for the asymptotic normality of the proposed estimators along with a consistent estimator for their finite dimensional covariance matrices. These sufficient conditions allow the number of variables to exceed the sample size and the presence of many small non‐zero coefficients. Our methods and theory apply to interval estimation of a preconceived regression coefficient or contrast as well as simultaneous interval estimation of many regression coefficients. Moreover, the method proposed turns the regression data into an approximate Gaussian sequence of point estimators of individual regression coefficients, which can be used to select variables after proper thresholding. The simulation results that are presented demonstrate the accuracy of the coverage probability of the confidence intervals proposed as well as other desirable properties, strongly supporting the theoretical results.
Journal Article
Estimation and Inference of Heterogeneous Treatment Effects using Random Forests
Many scientific and engineering challenges-ranging from personalized medicine to customized marketing recommendations-require an understanding of treatment effect heterogeneity. In this article, we develop a nonparametric causal forest for estimating heterogeneous treatment effects that extends Breiman's widely used random forest algorithm. In the potential outcomes framework with unconfoundedness, we show that causal forests are pointwise consistent for the true treatment effect and have an asymptotically Gaussian and centered sampling distribution. We also discuss a practical method for constructing asymptotic confidence intervals for the true treatment effect that are centered at the causal forest estimates. Our theoretical results rely on a generic Gaussian theory for a large family of random forest algorithms. To our knowledge, this is the first set of results that allows any type of random forest, including classification and regression forests, to be used for provably valid statistical inference. In experiments, we find causal forests to be substantially more powerful than classical methods based on nearest-neighbor matching, especially in the presence of irrelevant covariates.
Journal Article
Causal inference by using invariant prediction: identification and confidence intervals
What is the difference between a prediction that is made with a causal model and that with a non-causal model? Suppose that we intervene on the predictor variables or change the whole environment. The predictions from a causal model will in general work as well under interventions as for observational data. In contrast, predictions from a non-causal model can potentially be very wrong if we actively intervene on variables. Here, we propose to exploit this invariance of a prediction under a causal model for causal inference: given different experimental settings (e.g. various interventions) we collect all models that do show invariance in their predictive accuracy across settings and interventions. The causal model will be a member of this set of models with high probability. This approach yields valid confidence intervals for the causal relationships in quite general scenarios. We examine the example of structural equation models in more detail and provide sufficient assumptions under which the set of causal predictors becomes identifiable. We further investigate robustness properties of our approach under model misspecification and discuss possible extensions. The empirical properties are studied for various data sets, including large-scale gene perturbation experiments.
Journal Article
ROBUST NONPARAMETRIC CONFIDENCE INTERVALS FOR REGRESSION-DISCONTINUITY DESIGNS
In the regression-discontinuity (RD) design, units are assigned to treatment based on whether their value of an observed covariate exceeds a known cutoff. In this design, local polynomial estimators are now routinely employed to construct confidence intervals for treatment effects. The performance of these confidence intervals in applications, however, may be seriously hampered by their sensitivity to the specific bandwidth employed. Available bandwidth selectors typically yield a \"large\" bandwidth, leading to data-driven confidence intervals that may be biased, with empirical coverage well below their nominal target. We propose new theory-based, more robust confidence interval estimators for average treatment effects at the cutoff in sharp RD, sharp kink RD, fuzzy RD, and fuzzy kink RD designs. Our proposed confidence intervals are constructed using a bias-corrected RD estimator together with a novel standard error estimator. For practical implementation, we discuss mean squared error optimal bandwidths, which are by construction not valid for conventional confidence intervals but are valid with our robust approach, and consistent standard error estimators based on our new variance formulas. In a special case of practical interest, our procedure amounts to running a quadratic instead of a linear local regression. More generally, our results give a formal justification to simple inference procedures based on increasing the order of the local polynomial estimator employed. We find in a simulation study that our confidence intervals exhibit close-to-correct empirical coverage and good empirical interval length on average, remarkably improving upon the alternatives available in the literature. All results are readily available in R and STATA using our companion software packages described in Calonico, Cattaneo, and Titiunik (2014d, 2014b).
Journal Article
Bayesian data analysis for newcomers
This article explains the foundational concepts of Bayesian data analysis using virtually no mathematical notation. Bayesian ideas already match your intuitions from everyday reasoning and from traditional data analysis. Simple examples of Bayesian data analysis are presented that illustrate how the information delivered by a Bayesian analysis can be directly interpreted. Bayesian approaches to null-value assessment are discussed. The article clarifies misconceptions about Bayesian methods that newcomers might have acquired elsewhere. We discuss prior distributions and explain how they are not a liability but an important asset. We discuss the relation of Bayesian data analysis to Bayesian models of mind, and we briefly discuss what methodological problems Bayesian data analysis is not meant to solve. After you have read this article, you should have a clear sense of how Bayesian data analysis works and the sort of information it delivers, and why that information is so intuitive and useful for drawing conclusions from data.
Journal Article
Model averaging in ecology: a review of Bayesian, information-theoretic, and tactical approaches for predictive inference
In ecology, the true causal structure for a given problem is often not known, and several plausible models and thus model predictions exist. It has been claimed that using weighted averages of these models can reduce prediction error, as well as better reflect model selection uncertainty. These claims, however, are often demonstrated by isolated examples. Analysts must better understand under which conditions model averaging can improve predictions and their uncertainty estimates. Moreover, a large range of different model averaging methods exists, raising the question of how they differ in their behaviour and performance. Here, we review the mathematical foundations of model averaging along with the diversity of approaches available. We explain that the error in model‐averaged predictions depends on each model's predictive bias and variance, as well as the covariance in predictions between models, and uncertainty about model weights. We show that model averaging is particularly useful if the predictive error of contributing model predictions is dominated by variance, and if the covariance between models is low. For noisy data, which predominate in ecology, these conditions will often be met. Many different methods to derive averaging weights exist, from Bayesian over information‐theoretical to cross‐validation optimized and resampling approaches. A general recommendation is difficult, because the performance of methods is often context dependent. Importantly, estimating weights creates some additional uncertainty. As a result, estimated model weights may not always outperform arbitrary fixed weights, such as equal weights for all models. When averaging a set of models with many inadequate models, however, estimating model weights will typically be superior to equal weights. We also investigate the quality of the confidence intervals calculated for model‐averaged predictions, showing that they differ greatly in behaviour and seldom manage to achieve nominal coverage. Our overall recommendations stress the importance of non‐parametric methods such as cross‐validation for a reliable uncertainty quantification of model‐averaged predictions.
Journal Article
Statistical tests, P values, confidence intervals, and power: a guide to misinterpretations
Misinterpretation and abuse of statistical tests, confidence intervals, and statistical power have been decried for decades, yet remain rampant. A key problem is that there are no interpretations of these concepts that are at once simple, intuitive, correct, and foolproof. Instead, correct use and interpretation of these statistics requires an attention to detail which seems to tax the patience of working scientists. This high cognitive demand has led to an epidemic of shortcut definitions and interpretations that are simply wrong, sometimes disastrously so—and yet these misinterpretations dominate much of the scientific literature. In light of this problem, we provide definitions and a discussion of basic statistics that are more general and critical than typically found in traditional introductory expositions. Our goal is to provide a resource for instructors, researchers, and consumers of statistics whose knowledge of statistical theory and technique may be limited but who wish to avoid and spot misinterpretations. We emphasize how violation of often unstated analysis protocols (such as selecting analyses for presentation based on the P values they produce) can lead to small P values even if the declared test hypothesis is correct, and can lead to large P values even if that hypothesis is incorrect. We then provide an explanatory list of 25 misinterpretations of P values, confidence intervals, and power. We conclude with guidelines for improving statistical interpretation and reporting.
Journal Article