Testing for conditional multiple marginal independence

Survey respondents are often prompted to pick any number of responses from a set of possible responses. Categorical variables that summarize this kind of data are called pick any/c variables. Counts from surveys that contain a pick any/c variable along with a group variable (r levels) and stratification variable (q levels) can be marginally summarized into an r x c x q contingency table. A question that may naturally arise from this setup is to determine if the group and pick any/c variable are marginally independent given the stratification variable. A test for conditional multiple marginal independence (CMMI) can be used to answer this question. Since subjects may pick any number out of c possible responses, the Cochran (1954, Biometrics 10, 417-451) and Mantel and Haenszel (1959, Journal of the National Cancer Institute 22, 719-748) tests cannot be used directly because they assume that units in the contingency table are independent of each other. Therefore, new testing methods are developed. Cochran's test statistic is extended to r x 2 x q tables, and a modified version of this statistic is proposed to test CMMI. Its sampling distribution can be approximated through bootstrapping. Other CMMI testing methods discussed are bootstrap p-value combination methods and Bonferroni adjustments. Simulation findings suggest that the proposed bootstrap procedures and the Bonferroni adjustments consistently hold the correct size and provide power against various alternatives.     

On the First-Order Rao—Scott Correction of the Umesh—Loughin—Scherer Statistic

Decady and Thomas (2000, Biometrics 56, 893-896) propose a first-order corrected Umesh-Loughin-Scherer statistic to test for association in an r x c contingency table with multiple column responses. Agresti and Liu (1999, Biometrics 55, 936-943) point out that such statistics are not invariant to the arbitrary designation of a zero or one to a positive response. This paper shows that, in addition, the proposed testing procedure does not hold the correct size when there are strong pairwise associations between responses.     

Modified GEE and Goodness of the Marginal Fit (GOMF) Test with Correlated Binary Responses for Contingency Tables

This paper addresses testing the goodness of fit of models for marginal probabilities estimated by generalized estimating equations. We develop a modified version of generalized estimating equation and a goodness‐of‐fit test based on the fitted marginal means. The test statistic is easy to compute and has a simple reference distribution. Its performance is evaluated asymptotically and in small samples. It is also compared to the deviance and Pearson X² statistics. Example applications are given. (© 2004 WILEY‐VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim)     

Testing and estimation of proportion (or risk) ratio under the matched‐pair design with multiple binary endpoints

The proportion ratio (PR) of responses between an experimental treatment and a control treatment is one of the most commonly used indices to measure the relative treatment effect in a randomized clinical trial. We develop asymptotic and permutation‐based procedures for testing equality of treatment effects as well as derive confidence intervals of PRs for multivariate binary matched‐pair data under a mixed‐effects exponential risk model. To evaluate and compare the performance of these test procedures and interval estimators, we employ Monte Carlo simulation. When the number of matched pairs is large, we find that all test procedures presented here can perform well with respect to Type I error. When the number of matched pairs is small, the permutation‐based test procedures developed in this paper is of use. Furthermore, using test procedures (or interval estimators) based on a weighted linear average estimator of treatment effects can improve power (or gain precision) when the treatment effects on all response variables of interest are known to fall in the same direction. Finally, we apply the data taken from a crossover clinical trial that monitored several adverse events of an antidepressive drug to illustrate the practical use of test procedures and interval estimators considered here.     

Test of marginal compatibility and smoothing methods for exchangeable binary data with unequal cluster sizes

Exchangeable binary data are often collected in developmental toxicity and other studies, and a whole host of parametric distributions for fitting this kind of data have been proposed in the literature. While these distributions can be matched to have the same marginal probability and intra-cluster correlation, they can be quite different in terms of shape and higher-order quantities of interest such as the litter-level risk of having at least one malformed fetus. A sensible alternative is to fit a saturated model (Bowman and George, 1995, Journal of the American Statistical Association 90, 871-879) using the expectation-maximization (EM) algorithm proposed by Stefanescu and Turnbull (2003, Biometrics 59, 18-24). The assumption of compatibility of marginal distributions is often made to link up the distributions for different cluster sizes so that estimation can be based on the combined data. Stefanescu and Turnbull proposed a modified trend test to test this assumption. Their test, however, fails to take into account the variability of an estimated null expectation and as a result leads to inaccurate p-values. This drawback is rectified in this article. When the data are sparse, the probability function estimated using a saturated model can be very jagged and some kind of smoothing is needed. We extend the penalized likelihood method (Simonoff, 1983, Annals of Statistics 11, 208-218) to the present case of unequal cluster sizes and implement the method using an EM-type algorithm. In the presence of covariate, we propose a penalized kernel method that performs smoothing in both the covariate and response space. The proposed methods are illustrated using several data sets and the sampling and robustness properties of the resulting estimators are evaluated by simulations.