Inference and foundations

Filter results by

Search Help
Currently selected filters that can be removed

Keyword(s)

Type

1 facets displayed. 0 facets selected.

Survey or statistical program

1 facets displayed. 0 facets selected.
Sort Help
entries

Results

All (5)

All (5) ((5 results))

  • Articles and reports: 12-001-X200800110606
    Description:

    Data from election polls in the US are typically presented in two-way categorical tables, and there are many polls before the actual election in November. For example, in the Buckeye State Poll in 1998 for governor there are three polls, January, April and October; the first category represents the candidates (e.g., Fisher, Taft and other) and the second category represents the current status of the voters (likely to vote and not likely to vote for governor of Ohio). There is a substantial number of undecided voters for one or both categories in all three polls, and we use a Bayesian method to allocate the undecided voters to the three candidates. This method permits modeling different patterns of missingness under ignorable and nonignorable assumptions, and a multinomial-Dirichlet model is used to estimate the cell probabilities which can help to predict the winner. We propose a time-dependent nonignorable nonresponse model for the three tables. Here, a nonignorable nonresponse model is centered on an ignorable nonresponse model to induce some flexibility and uncertainty about ignorabilty or nonignorability. As competitors we also consider two other models, an ignorable and a nonignorable nonresponse model. These latter two models assume a common stochastic process to borrow strength over time. Markov chain Monte Carlo methods are used to fit the models. We also construct a parameter that can potentially be used to predict the winner among the candidates in the November election.

    Release date: 2008-06-26

  • Articles and reports: 11-522-X200600110392
    Description:

    We use a robust Bayesian method to analyze data with possibly nonignorable nonresponse and selection bias. A robust logistic regression model is used to relate the response indicators (Bernoulli random variable) to the covariates, which are available for everyone in the finite population. This relationship can adequately explain the difference between respondents and nonrespondents for the sample. This robust model is obtained by expanding the standard logistic regression model to a mixture of Student's distributions, thereby providing propensity scores (selection probability) which are used to construct adjustment cells. The nonrespondents' values are filled in by drawing a random sample from a kernel density estimator, formed from the respondents' values within the adjustment cells. Prediction uses a linear spline rank-based regression of the response variable on the covariates by areas, sampling the errors from another kernel density estimator; thereby further robustifying our method. We use Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) methods to fit our model. The posterior distribution of a quantile of the response variable is obtained within each sub-area using the order statistic over all the individuals (sampled and nonsampled). We compare our robust method with recent parametric methods

    Release date: 2008-03-17

  • Articles and reports: 11-522-X200600110398
    Description:

    The study of longitudinal data is vital in terms of accurately observing changes in responses of interest for individuals, communities, and larger populations over time. Linear mixed effects models (for continuous responses observed over time) and generalized linear mixed effects models and generalized estimating equations (for more general responses such as binary or count data observed over time) are the most popular techniques used for analyzing longitudinal data from health studies, though, as with all modeling techniques, these approaches have limitations, partly due to their underlying assumptions. In this review paper, we will discuss some advances, including curve-based techniques, which make modeling longitudinal data more flexible. Three examples will be presented from the health literature utilizing these more flexible procedures, with the goal of demonstrating that some otherwise difficult questions can be reasonably answered when analyzing complex longitudinal data in population health studies.

    Release date: 2008-03-17

  • Articles and reports: 11-522-X200600110419
    Description:

    Health services research generally relies on observational data to compare outcomes of patients receiving different therapies. Comparisons of patient groups in observational studies may be biased, in that outcomes differ due to both the effects of treatment and the effects of patient prognosis. In some cases, especially when data are collected on detailed clinical risk factors, these differences can be controlled for using statistical or epidemiological methods. In other cases, when unmeasured characteristics of the patient population affect both the decision to provide therapy and the outcome, these differences cannot be removed using standard techniques. Use of health administrative data requires particular cautions in undertaking observational studies since important clinical information does not exist. We discuss several statistical and epidemiological approaches to remove overt (measurable) and hidden (unmeasurable) bias in observational studies. These include regression model-based case-mix adjustment, propensity-based matching, redefining the exposure variable of interest, and the econometric technique of instrumental variable (IV) analysis. These methods are illustrated using examples from the medical literature including prediction of one-year mortality following heart attack; the return to health care spending in higher spending U.S. regions in terms of clinical and financial benefits; and the long-term survival benefits of invasive cardiac management of heart attack patients. It is possible to use health administrative data for observational studies provided careful attention is paid to addressing issues of reverse causation and unmeasured confounding.

    Release date: 2008-03-17

  • Articles and reports: 92F0138M2008002
    Description:

    On November 26 2006, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) held an international workshop on defining and measuring metropolitan regions. The reasons the OECD organized this workshop are listed below.

    1. Metropolitan Regions have become a crucial economic actor in today's highly integrated world. Not only do they play their traditional role of growth poles in their countries but they function as essential nodes of the global economy.2. Policy makers, international organisations and research networks are increasingly called to compare the economic and social performances of Metropolitan Regions across countries. Examples of this work undertaken in international organisation and networks include the UN-Habitat, the EU Urban Audit, ESPON and the OECD Competitive Cities.3. The scope of what we can learn from these international comparisons, however, is limited by the lack of a comparable definition of Metropolitan Regions. Although most countries have their own definitions, these vary significantly from one country to another. Furthermore, in search for higher cross-country comparability, international initiatives have - somehow paradoxically - generated an even larger number of definitions.4. In principle, there is no clear reason to prefer one definition to another. As each definition has been elaborated for a specific analytical purpose, it captures some features of a Metropolitan Region while it tends to overlook others. The issue, rather, is that we do not know the pros and the cons of different definitions nor, most important, the analytical implications of using one definition rather than another. 5. In order to respond to these questions, the OECD hosted an international workshop on 'Defining and Measuring Metropolitan Regions'. The workshop brought together major international organisations (the UN, Eurostat, the World Bank, and the OECD), National Statistical Offices and researchers from this field. The aim of the workshop was to develop some 'guiding principles', which could be agreed upon among the participants and would eventually provide the basis for some form of 'International Guidance' for comparing Metropolitan Regions across countries.

    This working paper was presented at this workshop. It provides the conceptual and methodological basis for the definition of metropolitan areas in Canada and provides a detailed comparison of Canada's methodology to that of the USA. The intent was to encourage discussion regarding Canada's approach to defining metropolitan areas in the effort to identify the 'guiding principles'. It is being made available as a working paper to continue this discussion and to provide background to the user community to encourage dialogue and commentary from the user community regarding Canada's metropolitan area methodology.

    Release date: 2008-02-20
Data (0)

Data (0) (0 results)

No content available at this time.

Analysis (5)

Analysis (5) ((5 results))

  • Articles and reports: 12-001-X200800110606
    Description:

    Data from election polls in the US are typically presented in two-way categorical tables, and there are many polls before the actual election in November. For example, in the Buckeye State Poll in 1998 for governor there are three polls, January, April and October; the first category represents the candidates (e.g., Fisher, Taft and other) and the second category represents the current status of the voters (likely to vote and not likely to vote for governor of Ohio). There is a substantial number of undecided voters for one or both categories in all three polls, and we use a Bayesian method to allocate the undecided voters to the three candidates. This method permits modeling different patterns of missingness under ignorable and nonignorable assumptions, and a multinomial-Dirichlet model is used to estimate the cell probabilities which can help to predict the winner. We propose a time-dependent nonignorable nonresponse model for the three tables. Here, a nonignorable nonresponse model is centered on an ignorable nonresponse model to induce some flexibility and uncertainty about ignorabilty or nonignorability. As competitors we also consider two other models, an ignorable and a nonignorable nonresponse model. These latter two models assume a common stochastic process to borrow strength over time. Markov chain Monte Carlo methods are used to fit the models. We also construct a parameter that can potentially be used to predict the winner among the candidates in the November election.

    Release date: 2008-06-26

  • Articles and reports: 11-522-X200600110392
    Description:

    We use a robust Bayesian method to analyze data with possibly nonignorable nonresponse and selection bias. A robust logistic regression model is used to relate the response indicators (Bernoulli random variable) to the covariates, which are available for everyone in the finite population. This relationship can adequately explain the difference between respondents and nonrespondents for the sample. This robust model is obtained by expanding the standard logistic regression model to a mixture of Student's distributions, thereby providing propensity scores (selection probability) which are used to construct adjustment cells. The nonrespondents' values are filled in by drawing a random sample from a kernel density estimator, formed from the respondents' values within the adjustment cells. Prediction uses a linear spline rank-based regression of the response variable on the covariates by areas, sampling the errors from another kernel density estimator; thereby further robustifying our method. We use Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) methods to fit our model. The posterior distribution of a quantile of the response variable is obtained within each sub-area using the order statistic over all the individuals (sampled and nonsampled). We compare our robust method with recent parametric methods

    Release date: 2008-03-17

  • Articles and reports: 11-522-X200600110398
    Description:

    The study of longitudinal data is vital in terms of accurately observing changes in responses of interest for individuals, communities, and larger populations over time. Linear mixed effects models (for continuous responses observed over time) and generalized linear mixed effects models and generalized estimating equations (for more general responses such as binary or count data observed over time) are the most popular techniques used for analyzing longitudinal data from health studies, though, as with all modeling techniques, these approaches have limitations, partly due to their underlying assumptions. In this review paper, we will discuss some advances, including curve-based techniques, which make modeling longitudinal data more flexible. Three examples will be presented from the health literature utilizing these more flexible procedures, with the goal of demonstrating that some otherwise difficult questions can be reasonably answered when analyzing complex longitudinal data in population health studies.

    Release date: 2008-03-17

  • Articles and reports: 11-522-X200600110419
    Description:

    Health services research generally relies on observational data to compare outcomes of patients receiving different therapies. Comparisons of patient groups in observational studies may be biased, in that outcomes differ due to both the effects of treatment and the effects of patient prognosis. In some cases, especially when data are collected on detailed clinical risk factors, these differences can be controlled for using statistical or epidemiological methods. In other cases, when unmeasured characteristics of the patient population affect both the decision to provide therapy and the outcome, these differences cannot be removed using standard techniques. Use of health administrative data requires particular cautions in undertaking observational studies since important clinical information does not exist. We discuss several statistical and epidemiological approaches to remove overt (measurable) and hidden (unmeasurable) bias in observational studies. These include regression model-based case-mix adjustment, propensity-based matching, redefining the exposure variable of interest, and the econometric technique of instrumental variable (IV) analysis. These methods are illustrated using examples from the medical literature including prediction of one-year mortality following heart attack; the return to health care spending in higher spending U.S. regions in terms of clinical and financial benefits; and the long-term survival benefits of invasive cardiac management of heart attack patients. It is possible to use health administrative data for observational studies provided careful attention is paid to addressing issues of reverse causation and unmeasured confounding.

    Release date: 2008-03-17

  • Articles and reports: 92F0138M2008002
    Description:

    On November 26 2006, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) held an international workshop on defining and measuring metropolitan regions. The reasons the OECD organized this workshop are listed below.

    1. Metropolitan Regions have become a crucial economic actor in today's highly integrated world. Not only do they play their traditional role of growth poles in their countries but they function as essential nodes of the global economy.2. Policy makers, international organisations and research networks are increasingly called to compare the economic and social performances of Metropolitan Regions across countries. Examples of this work undertaken in international organisation and networks include the UN-Habitat, the EU Urban Audit, ESPON and the OECD Competitive Cities.3. The scope of what we can learn from these international comparisons, however, is limited by the lack of a comparable definition of Metropolitan Regions. Although most countries have their own definitions, these vary significantly from one country to another. Furthermore, in search for higher cross-country comparability, international initiatives have - somehow paradoxically - generated an even larger number of definitions.4. In principle, there is no clear reason to prefer one definition to another. As each definition has been elaborated for a specific analytical purpose, it captures some features of a Metropolitan Region while it tends to overlook others. The issue, rather, is that we do not know the pros and the cons of different definitions nor, most important, the analytical implications of using one definition rather than another. 5. In order to respond to these questions, the OECD hosted an international workshop on 'Defining and Measuring Metropolitan Regions'. The workshop brought together major international organisations (the UN, Eurostat, the World Bank, and the OECD), National Statistical Offices and researchers from this field. The aim of the workshop was to develop some 'guiding principles', which could be agreed upon among the participants and would eventually provide the basis for some form of 'International Guidance' for comparing Metropolitan Regions across countries.

    This working paper was presented at this workshop. It provides the conceptual and methodological basis for the definition of metropolitan areas in Canada and provides a detailed comparison of Canada's methodology to that of the USA. The intent was to encourage discussion regarding Canada's approach to defining metropolitan areas in the effort to identify the 'guiding principles'. It is being made available as a working paper to continue this discussion and to provide background to the user community to encourage dialogue and commentary from the user community regarding Canada's metropolitan area methodology.

    Release date: 2008-02-20
Reference (0)

Reference (0) (0 results)

No content available at this time.

Date modified: