Standard errors and confidence intervals for correlations corrected for indirect range restriction: A simulation study comparing analytic and bootstrap methods.

Bootstrap is a returned re-sampling method used to estimate the variance component and their variability. Adjusted bootstrap method was used by Wiley in p×i design for normal data in 2001. However, Wiley did not compare the difference between adjusted method and unadjusted method when estimating the variability. To expand Wiley’s 2001 study, our study applied Monte Carlo method to simulate four distribution data. The aim of simulation is to explore the effects of four different estimation methods when estimating the variability of estimated variance components for generalizability theory. The four distribution data are normal distribution data, dichotomous distribution data, polytomous distribution data and skewed distribution data. It is common that researchers focus on normal distribution data and neglect non-normal distribution data, yet non-normal distribution data could always be seen in tests such as TOEFL and GRE. There are several methods to estimate the variability of variance components, including traditional, bootstrap, jackknife and Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC). Former research by Li and Zhang (2009) shows that bootstrap method is significantlybetter than traditional, jackknife, and MCMC methods in estimating the variability for four distribution data. Bootstrap method has superior cross-distribution quality when estimating the variability of estimated variance components. Li and Zhang (2009) also suggest that bootstrap method should be adopted with a divide-and-conquer strategy to obtain good estimated standard error and estimated confidence interval and the criteria of such strategy should be set to: boot-p for person, boot-pi for item, and boot-i for person and item. However, it is unclear that which of the bootstrap methods (adjusted and unadjusted) is better for boot-p, boot-pi, and boot-i. Therefore, our study intends to probe into this comparison as well. This aim of the study is to explore whether adjusted bootstrap method is superior to unadjusted method in improving the estimation of variance components and their variability relative for generalizability theory. The simulation is implemented in R statistical programming environment. To simulate skewed data, HyperbolicDist package is used. Some criteria are set to compare the four methods. The bias is considered when variance components and their standard errors are estimated. The smaller the absolute bias is, the more reliable the result is. The criterion of confidence intervals is 80% interval coverage. If the 80% interval coverage is closer to 0.80, the confidence interval is more reliable. The results indicate that for four distribution data, adjusted bootstrap method is superior to unadjusted bootstrap method whether in point estimation of variance components or in variability estimation of variance components. For its improvement of the estimation of variance components and their variability for generalizability theory, adjusted bootstrap should be adopted as soon as possible.

Bootstrapping R2 and adjusted R2 in regression analysis

Previous investigations of genetic correlation (rG)in dicate that rG is sensitive to sampling error. A nonparametric bootstrap method provides an alternative for estimating standard error and confidence intervals. Using the bootstrap method in a half‐sib red clover (Trifolium pratense L.) population, we evaluated the effect of sample sizes on the point estimate, its sampling error, and confidence interval of rG. We conducted separate analyses for varying numbers of replications, families, and plants per family using a seedling data set. Precision of rG was affected by sample sizes and traits measured. To achieve a reasonable standard error and a small confidence interval of rG, a minimum of 42 half‐sib families each having nine plants in four replications would be required. Although this study was limited to seedling traits in a greenhouse, similar results may occur when measuring other traits.

It is good scientific practice to the report an appropriate estimate of effect size and a confidence interval (CI) to indicate the precision with which a population effect was estimated. For comparisons of 2 independent groups, a probability-based effect size estimator (A) that is equal to the area under a receiver operating characteristic curve and closely related to the popular Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney nonparametric statistical tests has many appealing properties (e.g., easy to understand, robust to violations of parametric assumptions, insensitive to outliers). We performed a simulation study to compare 9 analytic and 3 empirical (bootstrap) methods for constructing a CI for A that can yield very different CIs for the same data. The experimental design crossed 6 factors to yield a total of 324 cells representing challenging but realistic data conditions. Results were examined using several criteria, with emphasis placed on the extent to which observed CI coverage probabilities approximated nominal levels. Based on the simulation study results, the bias-corrected and accelerated bootstrap method is recommended for constructing a CI for the A statistic; bootstrap methods also provided the least biased and most accurate standard error of A. An empirical illustration examining score differences on a citation-based index of scholarly impact across faculty at low-ranked versus high-ranked research universities underscores the importance of choosing an appropriate CI method.

Bootstrap tolerance and confidence limits for two-variable reliability using independent and weakly dependent observations

With nonnormal data, the typical confidence interval of the correlation (Fisher z') may be inaccurate. The literature has been unclear as to which of several alternative methods should be used instead, and how extreme a violation of normality is needed to justify an alternative. Through Monte Carlo simulation, 11 confidence interval methods were compared, including Fisher z', two Spearman rank-order methods, the Box-Cox transformation, rank-based inverse normal (RIN) transformation, and various bootstrap methods. Nonnormality often distorted the Fisher z' confidence interval-for example, leading to a 95% confidence interval that had actual coverage as low as 68%. Increasing the sample size sometimes worsened this problem. Inaccurate Fisher z' intervals could be predicted by a sample kurtosis of at least 2, an absolute sample skewness of at least 1, or significant violations of normality hypothesis tests. Only the Spearman rank-order and RIN transformation methods were universally robust to nonnormality. Among the bootstrap methods, an observed imposed bootstrap came closest to accurate coverage, though it often resulted in an overly long interval. The results suggest that sample nonnormality can justify avoidance of the Fisher z' interval in favor of a more robust alternative. R code for the relevant methods is provided in supplementary materials.

A confidence interval is an interval estimate of a parameter of a population calculated from a sample drawn from the population. Bootstrapping method, which involves producing several new data sets that are resampled from the original data in order to estimate parameter for each newly created data set, allowing an empirical distribution for the parameter to be estimated. Since certain statistics are harder to estimate, confidence intervals are rarely employed. Several statistics might necessitate multi-step formulas assuming that are impractical for calculating confidence intervals. This paper reviews research on the concept of bootstrapping and bootstrap confidence interval. The current narrative analysis was developed to answer the main research question: (1) What is the concept of the bootstrap method and bootstrap confidence interval? (2) What are the methods of bootstrapping to obtain confidence interval? This study has found general bootstrap method idea, various techniques of bootstrap methods, its advantages and disadvantages, and its limitations. There are normal interval method, percentile bootstrap method, basic method, first-order normal approximation method, bias-corrected bootstrap, accelerated bias-corrected bootstrap and bootstrap-t method. This study concludes that the advantages of using bootstrap CI is that it does not require any assumptions about the shape of distribution and universality of the approach. Bootstrapping is a computer-intensive statistical technique that relies significantly on modern high-speed digital computers to do massive computations.

Fragility analysis and probabilistic performance evaluation of nuclear containment structure subjected to internal pressure

Measurement uncertainty for < 905 > Uniformity of Dosage Units tests using Monte Carlo and bootstrapping methods – Uncertainties arising from sampling and analytical steps

The data dependency due to multiple use of the same subjects has impact on the standard error (SE) of the detection cost function (DCF) in speaker recognition evaluation. The DCF is defined as a weighted sum of the probabilities of type I and type II errors at a given threshold. A two-layer data structure is constructed: target scores are grouped into target sets based on the dependency, and likewise for non-target scores. On account of the needed equal probabilities for scores being selected when resampling, target sets must contain the same number of target scores, and so must non-target sets. In addition to the bootstrap method with i.i.d. assumption, the nonparametric two-sample one-layer and two-layer bootstrap methods are carried out based on whether the resampling takes place only on sets, or subsequently on scores within the sets. Due to the stochastic nature of the bootstrap, the distributions of the SEs of the DCF estimated using the three different bootstrap methods are created and compared. After performing hypothesis testing, it is found that data dependency increases not only the SE but also the variation of the SE, and the two-layer bootstrap is more conservative than the one-layer bootstrap. The rationale regarding the different impacts of the three bootstrap methods on the estimated SEs is investigated.

When the multivariate normality assumption is violated in structural equation modeling, a leading remedy involves estimation via normal theory maximum likelihood with robust corrections to standard errors. We propose that this approach might not be best for forming confidence intervals for quantities with sampling distributions that are slow to approach normality, or for functions of model parameters. We implement and study a robust analog to likelihood-based confidence intervals based on inverting the robust chi-square difference test of Satorra (2000). We compare robust standard errors and the robust likelihood-based approach versus resampling methods in confirmatory factor analysis (Studies 1 & 2) and mediation analysis models (Study 3) for both single parameters and functions of model parameters, and under a variety of nonnormal data generation conditions. The percentile bootstrap emerged as the method with the best calibrated coverage rates and should be preferred if resampling is possible, followed by the robust likelihood-based approach.

Passive systems, which completely depend on natural phenomena such as gravity, conduction and convection to accomplish the safety functions, are increasingly being used in new generation nuclear reactor designs. However, since the driving forces of passive systems are weak, they are more vulnerable to associated uncertainties and there may be a non-zero probability for the system to deviate from the intended behavior and leads to functional failure. Methods for quantification of the functional failure include Monte-Carlo simulation of the system uncertainties using a validated mechanistic code. Generally, the mechanistic codes used for complex system modeling are computationally expensive and Monte- Carlo simulation for estimating small failure probabilities requires more time and often become prohibitive. In this respect, recently, functional reliability methodologies including advanced simulation techniques such as subset simulation, Markov chain Monte-Carlo, importance sampling, and response conditioning method are reported in open literature. Unlike in the case of direct Monte Carlo simulation, for the probability estimates obtained using these advanced simulations, analytical formulas are not available to estimate standard error and confidence interval. In this paper, the estimation of standard error and confidence interval of functional reliability estimates using computationally efficient re-sampling methods based on bootstrap technique are described. Numerical application of these methods, to quantify the variability of functional reliability estimates, is also explained.

Stress analysis and damage evolution in individual plies of notched composite laminates subjected to in-plane loads

Finding a new drug which is both safe and efficient is an expensive and time-consuming endeavour. In particular, establishing the ‘dose-effect relationship’ – how beneficial a drug is at different dosages – can be challenging. Predicting this curve requires gathering experimental data by exposing and recording how cells respond to various levels of the drug. However, extreme values are often observed at low and high dosages, potentially introducing errors that are hard to correct in the prediction process. Yet, these extreme observations are sometimes genuine so researchers cannot just ignore them. To improve dose-effect estimation, Zhou, Liu, Fang et al. developed a new general-purpose approach. It uses advanced statistical modelling to account for extremes in lab data. This strategy outperformed other methods when dealing with these observations while also providing higher efficiency in data analysis with more uniform data in experiments. To facilitate implementation, Zhou, Liu, Fang et al. set up a user-friendly tool baptized ‘REAP’; this free online resource allows scientists without advanced statistical experience to harness the new approach and to perform dose-effect analysis more easily and accurately. This could boost research across many different disciplines that examine the effects of chemicals on cells.

The high customer requirements for appropriate product quality pose a challenge for manufacturers and suppliers and also cause them many problems related to ensuring a sufficiently high product quality throughout the entire production cycle. For the above reasons, it is so important to assess the capability of monitored processes, and shaping, analyzing and controlling the capability of processes is an important aspect of managing an organization that uses a process approach to management. The use of an appropriate method to analyze the course of production processes is a necessity imposed by quality standards, e.g., ISO 9001: 2015. That is why it is so important to propose a quick and low-cost method of assessing production processes. For this purpose, a method of assessing the capability of the manufacturing process using bootstrap analysis was used. The article presents the analysis of inherent properties of the production process based on the results of measurements of the characteristic features of the process or the characteristics of the manufactured products (process variables) for the shafts with grooves. The main goals of the work are to develop a procedure for determining process capability based on the bootstrap method, including criteria for the classification of production process capability; to develop the criterion values for confidence intervals of production process capability; as well as to demonstrate the practical application of bootstrap analysis in manufacturing. Moreover, comparative analyses of process capabilities using bootstrap and classic methods were carried out. They confirm both the narrowing of the confidence interval when using the bootstrap method and the possibility of determining a better estimator of the lower limit of this range compared to the results obtained using the classic method. The tests carried out for the unit production of shafts with grooves showed that the analysis of the process capability for measuring tests n = 10 is possible. Finally, new criterion values for the assessment of process capability for the bootstrap method were proposed. The model for assessing the capability of production processes presented in the paper was implemented in low-volume production in the defense industry.