Inference and foundations
Results
All (6)
All (6) ((6 results))
- Articles and reports: 12-001-X202200200004Description:
This discussion attempts to add to Wu’s review of inference from non-probability samples, as well as to highlighting aspects that are likely avenues for useful additional work. It concludes with a call for an organized stable of high-quality probability surveys that will be focused on providing adjustment information for non-probability surveys.
Release date: 2022-12-15 - Articles and reports: 12-001-X202100200006Description:
Sample-based calibration occurs when the weights of a survey are calibrated to control totals that are random, instead of representing fixed population-level totals. Control totals may be estimated from different phases of the same survey or from another survey. Under sample-based calibration, valid variance estimation requires that the error contribution due to estimating the control totals be accounted for. We propose a new variance estimation method that directly uses the replicate weights from two surveys, one survey being used to provide control totals for calibration of the other survey weights. No restrictions are set on the nature of the two replication methods and no variance-covariance estimates need to be computed, making the proposed method straightforward to implement in practice. A general description of the method for surveys with two arbitrary replication methods with different numbers of replicates is provided. It is shown that the resulting variance estimator is consistent for the asymptotic variance of the calibrated estimator, when calibration is done using regression estimation or raking. The method is illustrated in a real-world application, in which the demographic composition of two surveys needs to be harmonized to improve the comparability of the survey estimates.
Release date: 2022-01-06 - Articles and reports: 12-001-X201200211758Description:
This paper develops two Bayesian methods for inference about finite population quantiles of continuous survey variables from unequal probability sampling. The first method estimates cumulative distribution functions of the continuous survey variable by fitting a number of probit penalized spline regression models on the inclusion probabilities. The finite population quantiles are then obtained by inverting the estimated distribution function. This method is quite computationally demanding. The second method predicts non-sampled values by assuming a smoothly-varying relationship between the continuous survey variable and the probability of inclusion, by modeling both the mean function and the variance function using splines. The two Bayesian spline-model-based estimators yield a desirable balance between robustness and efficiency. Simulation studies show that both methods yield smaller root mean squared errors than the sample-weighted estimator and the ratio and difference estimators described by Rao, Kovar, and Mantel (RKM 1990), and are more robust to model misspecification than the regression through the origin model-based estimator described in Chambers and Dunstan (1986). When the sample size is small, the 95% credible intervals of the two new methods have closer to nominal confidence coverage than the sample-weighted estimator.
Release date: 2012-12-19 - Articles and reports: 12-001-X201000111250Description:
We propose a Bayesian Penalized Spline Predictive (BPSP) estimator for a finite population proportion in an unequal probability sampling setting. This new method allows the probabilities of inclusion to be directly incorporated into the estimation of a population proportion, using a probit regression of the binary outcome on the penalized spline of the inclusion probabilities. The posterior predictive distribution of the population proportion is obtained using Gibbs sampling. The advantages of the BPSP estimator over the Hájek (HK), Generalized Regression (GR), and parametric model-based prediction estimators are demonstrated by simulation studies and a real example in tax auditing. Simulation studies show that the BPSP estimator is more efficient, and its 95% credible interval provides better confidence coverage with shorter average width than the HK and GR estimators, especially when the population proportion is close to zero or one or when the sample is small. Compared to linear model-based predictive estimators, the BPSP estimators are robust to model misspecification and influential observations in the sample.
Release date: 2010-06-29 - Articles and reports: 11-522-X20030017700Description:
This paper suggests a useful framework for exploring the effects of moderate deviations from idealized conditions. It offers evaluation criteria for point estimators and interval estimators.
Release date: 2005-01-26 - 6. Use of generalized variance function models in inference from social and economic survey data ArchivedArticles and reports: 11-522-X20020016750Description:
Analyses of data from social and economic surveys sometimes use generalized variance function models to approximate the design variance of point estimators of population means and proportions. Analysts may use the resulting standard error estimates to compute associated confidence intervals or test statistics for the means and proportions of interest. In comparison with design-based variance estimators computed directly from survey microdata, generalized variance function models have several potential advantages, as will be discussed in this paper, including operational simplicity; increased stability of standard errors; and, for cases involving public-use datasets, reduction of disclosure limitation problems arising from the public release of stratum and cluster indicators.
These potential advantages, however, may be offset in part by several inferential issues. First, the properties of inferential statistics based on generalized variance functions (e.g., confidence interval coverage rates and widths) depend heavily on the relative empirical magnitudes of the components of variability associated, respectively, with:
(a) the random selection of a subset of items used in estimation of the generalized variance function model(b) the selection of sample units under a complex sample design (c) the lack of fit of the generalized variance function model (d) the generation of a finite population under a superpopulation model.
Second, under conditions, one may link each of components (a) through (d) with different empirical measures of the predictive adequacy of a generalized variance function model. Consequently, these measures of predictive adequacy can offer us some insight into the extent to which a given generalized variance function model may be appropriate for inferential use in specific applications.
Some of the proposed diagnostics are applied to data from the US Survey of Doctoral Recipients and the US Current Employment Survey. For the Survey of Doctoral Recipients, components (a), (c) and (d) are of principal concern. For the Current Employment Survey, components (b), (c) and (d) receive principal attention, and the availability of population microdata allow the development of especially detailed models for components (b) and (c).
Release date: 2004-09-13
Data (0)
Data (0) (0 results)
No content available at this time.
Analysis (6)
Analysis (6) ((6 results))
- Articles and reports: 12-001-X202200200004Description:
This discussion attempts to add to Wu’s review of inference from non-probability samples, as well as to highlighting aspects that are likely avenues for useful additional work. It concludes with a call for an organized stable of high-quality probability surveys that will be focused on providing adjustment information for non-probability surveys.
Release date: 2022-12-15 - Articles and reports: 12-001-X202100200006Description:
Sample-based calibration occurs when the weights of a survey are calibrated to control totals that are random, instead of representing fixed population-level totals. Control totals may be estimated from different phases of the same survey or from another survey. Under sample-based calibration, valid variance estimation requires that the error contribution due to estimating the control totals be accounted for. We propose a new variance estimation method that directly uses the replicate weights from two surveys, one survey being used to provide control totals for calibration of the other survey weights. No restrictions are set on the nature of the two replication methods and no variance-covariance estimates need to be computed, making the proposed method straightforward to implement in practice. A general description of the method for surveys with two arbitrary replication methods with different numbers of replicates is provided. It is shown that the resulting variance estimator is consistent for the asymptotic variance of the calibrated estimator, when calibration is done using regression estimation or raking. The method is illustrated in a real-world application, in which the demographic composition of two surveys needs to be harmonized to improve the comparability of the survey estimates.
Release date: 2022-01-06 - Articles and reports: 12-001-X201200211758Description:
This paper develops two Bayesian methods for inference about finite population quantiles of continuous survey variables from unequal probability sampling. The first method estimates cumulative distribution functions of the continuous survey variable by fitting a number of probit penalized spline regression models on the inclusion probabilities. The finite population quantiles are then obtained by inverting the estimated distribution function. This method is quite computationally demanding. The second method predicts non-sampled values by assuming a smoothly-varying relationship between the continuous survey variable and the probability of inclusion, by modeling both the mean function and the variance function using splines. The two Bayesian spline-model-based estimators yield a desirable balance between robustness and efficiency. Simulation studies show that both methods yield smaller root mean squared errors than the sample-weighted estimator and the ratio and difference estimators described by Rao, Kovar, and Mantel (RKM 1990), and are more robust to model misspecification than the regression through the origin model-based estimator described in Chambers and Dunstan (1986). When the sample size is small, the 95% credible intervals of the two new methods have closer to nominal confidence coverage than the sample-weighted estimator.
Release date: 2012-12-19 - Articles and reports: 12-001-X201000111250Description:
We propose a Bayesian Penalized Spline Predictive (BPSP) estimator for a finite population proportion in an unequal probability sampling setting. This new method allows the probabilities of inclusion to be directly incorporated into the estimation of a population proportion, using a probit regression of the binary outcome on the penalized spline of the inclusion probabilities. The posterior predictive distribution of the population proportion is obtained using Gibbs sampling. The advantages of the BPSP estimator over the Hájek (HK), Generalized Regression (GR), and parametric model-based prediction estimators are demonstrated by simulation studies and a real example in tax auditing. Simulation studies show that the BPSP estimator is more efficient, and its 95% credible interval provides better confidence coverage with shorter average width than the HK and GR estimators, especially when the population proportion is close to zero or one or when the sample is small. Compared to linear model-based predictive estimators, the BPSP estimators are robust to model misspecification and influential observations in the sample.
Release date: 2010-06-29 - Articles and reports: 11-522-X20030017700Description:
This paper suggests a useful framework for exploring the effects of moderate deviations from idealized conditions. It offers evaluation criteria for point estimators and interval estimators.
Release date: 2005-01-26 - 6. Use of generalized variance function models in inference from social and economic survey data ArchivedArticles and reports: 11-522-X20020016750Description:
Analyses of data from social and economic surveys sometimes use generalized variance function models to approximate the design variance of point estimators of population means and proportions. Analysts may use the resulting standard error estimates to compute associated confidence intervals or test statistics for the means and proportions of interest. In comparison with design-based variance estimators computed directly from survey microdata, generalized variance function models have several potential advantages, as will be discussed in this paper, including operational simplicity; increased stability of standard errors; and, for cases involving public-use datasets, reduction of disclosure limitation problems arising from the public release of stratum and cluster indicators.
These potential advantages, however, may be offset in part by several inferential issues. First, the properties of inferential statistics based on generalized variance functions (e.g., confidence interval coverage rates and widths) depend heavily on the relative empirical magnitudes of the components of variability associated, respectively, with:
(a) the random selection of a subset of items used in estimation of the generalized variance function model(b) the selection of sample units under a complex sample design (c) the lack of fit of the generalized variance function model (d) the generation of a finite population under a superpopulation model.
Second, under conditions, one may link each of components (a) through (d) with different empirical measures of the predictive adequacy of a generalized variance function model. Consequently, these measures of predictive adequacy can offer us some insight into the extent to which a given generalized variance function model may be appropriate for inferential use in specific applications.
Some of the proposed diagnostics are applied to data from the US Survey of Doctoral Recipients and the US Current Employment Survey. For the Survey of Doctoral Recipients, components (a), (c) and (d) are of principal concern. For the Current Employment Survey, components (b), (c) and (d) receive principal attention, and the availability of population microdata allow the development of especially detailed models for components (b) and (c).
Release date: 2004-09-13
Reference (0)
Reference (0) (0 results)
No content available at this time.
- Date modified: