Notes on interval estimation of the gamma correlation under stratified random sampling

We have developed four asymptotic interval estimators in closed forms for the gamma correlation under stratified random sampling, including the confidence interval based on the most commonly used weighted‐least‐squares (WLS) approach (CIWLS), the confidence interval calculated from the Mantel‐Haenszel (MH) type estimator with the Fisher‐type transformation (CIMHT), the confidence interval using the fundamental idea of Fieller's Theorem (CIFT) and the confidence interval derived from a monotonic function of the WLS estimator of Agresti's α with the logarithmic transformation (MWLSLR). To evaluate the finite‐sample performance of these four interval estimators and note the possible loss of accuracy in application of both Wald's confidence interval and MWLSLR using pooled data without accounting for stratification, we employ Monte Carlo simulation. We use the data taken from a general social survey studying the association between the income level and job satisfaction with strata formed by genders in black Americans published elsewhere to illustrate the practical use of these interval estimators.     

Confidence Limits on the Ratio of the Mean Failure Times Based on Paired Exponential Observations

This paper discusses interval estimation for the ratio of the mean failure times on the basis of paired exponential observations. This paper considers five interval estimators: the confidence interval using an idea similar to Fieller's theorem (CIFT), the confidence interval using an exact parametric test (CIEP), the confidence interval using the marginal likelihood ratio test (CILR), the confidence interval assuming no matching effect (CINM), and the confidence interval using a locally most powerful test (CIMP). To evaluate and compare the performance of these five interval estimators, this paper applies Monte Carlo simulation. This paper notes that with respect to the coverage probability, use of the CIFT, CILR, or CIMP, although which are all derived based on large sample theory, can perform well even when the number of pairs n is as small as 10. As compared with use of the CILR, this paper finds that use of the CIEP with equal tail probabilities is likely to lose efficiency. However, this loss can be reduced by using the optimal tail probabilities to minimize the average length when n is small (<20). This paper further notes that use of the CIMP is preferable to the CIEP in a variety of situations considered here. In fact, the average length of the CIMP with use of the optimal tail probabilities can even be shorter than that of the CILR. When the intraclass correlation between failure times within pairs is 0 (i.e., the failure times within the same pair are independent), the CINM, which is derived for two independent samples, is certainly the best one among the five interval estimators considered here. When there is an intraclass correlation but which is small (<0.10), the CIFT is recommended for obtaining a relatively short interval estimate without sacrificing the loss of the coverage probability. When the intraclass correlation is moderate or large, either the CILR or the CIMP with the optimal tail probabilities is preferable to the others. This paper also notes that if the intraclass correlation between failure times within pairs is large, use of the CINM can be misleading, especially when the number of pairs is large.     

Notes in Case-Control Studies with Matched Pairs under Inverse Sampling

In case-control studies with matched pairs, the traditional point estimator of odds ratio (OR) is well-known to be biased with no exact finite variance under binomial sampling. In this paper, we consider use of inverse sampling in which we continue to sample subjects to form matched pairs until we obtain a pre-determined number (>0) of index pairs with the case unexposed but the control exposed. In contrast to use of binomial sampling, we show that the uniformly minimum variance unbiased estimator (UMVUE) of OR does exist under inverse sampling. We further derive an exact confidence interval of OR in closed form. Finally, we develop an exact test and an asymptotic test for testing the null hypothesis H₀: OR = 1, as well as discuss sample size determination on the minimum required number of index pairs for a desired power at α-level.