Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Comparison of Two Bias-Corrected Covariance Estimators for Generalized Estimating Equations
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Comparison of Two Bias-Corrected Covariance Estimators for Generalized Estimating Equations
Do you wish to request the book?
Comparison of Two Bias-Corrected Covariance Estimators for Generalized Estimating Equations
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Comparison of Two Bias-Corrected Covariance Estimators for Generalized Estimating Equations
2007
Overview
Mancl and DeRouen (2001, Biometrics57, 126-134) and Kauermann and Carroll (2001, JASA96, 1387-1398) proposed alternative bias-corrected covariance estimators for generalized estimating equations parameter estimates of regression models for marginal means. The finite sample properties of these estimators are compared to those of the uncorrected sandwich estimator that underestimates variances in small samples. Although the formula of Mancl and DeRouen generally overestimates variances, it often leads to coverage of 95% confidence intervals near the nominal level even in some situations with as few as 10 clusters. An explanation for these seemingly contradictory results is that the tendency to undercoverage resulting from the substantial variability of sandwich estimators counteracts the impact of overcorrecting the bias. However, these positive results do not generally hold; for small cluster sizes (e.g., <10) their estimator often results in overcoverage, and the bias-corrected covariance estimator of Kauermann and Carroll may be preferred. The methods are illustrated using data from a nested cross-sectional cluster intervention trial on reducing underage drinking.
Publisher
Blackwell Publishing Inc,International Biometric Society,Blackwell Publishing Ltd
