"Confidence intervals for gamma-family measures of ordinal association": Correction.

Reports an error in "Confidence intervals for gamma-family measures of ordinal association" by Carol M. Woods (Psychological Methods, 2007[Jun], Vol 12[2], 185-204). The note corrects simulation results presented in the article concerning the performance of confidence intervals (CIs) for Spearman's rs. An error in the author's C++ code affected all simulation results for Spearman's rs (but none of the results for gamma-family indices). (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2007-07830-005.) This research focused on confidence intervals (CIs) for 10 measures of monotonic association between ordinal variables. Standard errors (SEs) were also reviewed because more than 1 formula was available per index. For 5 indices, an element of the formula used to compute an SE is given that is apparently new. CIs computed with different SEs were compared in simulations with small samples (N = 25, 50, 75, or 100) for variables with 4 or 5 categories. With N > 25, many CIs performed well. Performance was best for consistent CIs due to N. Cliff and colleagues (N. Cliff, 1996; N. Cliff & V. Charlin, 1991; J. D. Long & N. Cliff, 1997). CIs for Spearman's rank correlation were also examined: Parameter coverage was erratic and sometimes egregiously underestimated. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The Correction for Attenuation Due to Measurement Error: Clarifying Concepts and Creating Confidence Sets.

The correction for attenuation due to measurement error (CAME) has received many historical criticisms, most of which can be traced to the limited ability to use CAME inferentially. Past attempts to determine confidence intervals for CAME are summarized and their limitations discussed. The author suggests that inference requires confidence sets that demarcate those population parameters likely to have produced an obtained value-rather than indicating the samples likely to be produced by a given population-and that most researchers tend to confuse these 2 types of confidence sets. Three different Monte-Carlo methods are presented, each offering a different way of examining confidence sets under the new conceptualization. Exploring the implications of these approaches for CAME suggests potential consequences for other statistics. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Researchers Misunderstand Confidence Intervals and Standard Error Bars.

Little is known about researchers' understanding of confidence intervals (CIs) and standard error (SE) bars. Authors of journal articles in psychology, behavioral neuroscience, and medicine were invited to visit a Web site where they adjusted a figure until they judged 2 means, with error bars, to be just statistically significantly different (p     

Bootstrap Standard Error and Confidence Intervals for the Correlation Corrected for Range Restriction: A Simulation Study.

The standard Pearson correlation coefficient is a biased estimator of the true population correlation, ρ, when the predictor and the criterion are range restricted. To correct the bias, the correlation corrected for range restriction, rc, has been recommended, and a standard formula based on asymptotic results for estimating its standard error is also available. In the present study, the bootstrap standard-error estimate is proposed as an alternative. Monte Carlo simulation studies involving both normal and nonnormal data were conducted to examine the empirical performance of the proposed procedure under different levels of ρ, selection ratio, sample size, and truncation types. Results indicated that, with normal data, the bootstrap standard-error estimate is more accurate than the traditional estimate, particularly with small sample size. With nonnormal data, performance of both estimates depends critically on the distribution type. Furthermore, the bootstrap bias-corrected and accelerated interval consistently provided the most accurate coverage probability for ρ. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Confidence intervals and replication: Where will the next mean fall?

Confidence intervals (CIs) give information about replication, but many researchers have misconceptions about this information. One problem is that the percentage of future replication means captured by a particular CI varies markedly, depending on where in relation to the population mean that CI falls. The authors investigated the distribution of this percentage for ? known and unknown, for various sample sizes, and for robust CIs. The distribution has strong negative skew: Most 95% CIs will capture around 90% or more of replication means, but some will capture a much lower proportion. On average, a 95% CI will include just 83.4% of future replication means. The authors present figures designed to assist understanding of what CIs say about replication, and they also extend the discussion to explain how p values give information about replication. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Alpha's Standard Error (ASE): An Accurate and Precise Confidence Interval Estimate.

This research presents the inferential statistics for Cronbach's coefficient alpha on the basis of the standard statistical assumption of multivariate normality. The estimation of alpha's standard error (ASE) and confidence intervals are described, and the authors analytically and empirically investigate the effects of the components of these equations. The authors then demonstrate the superiority of this estimate compared with previous derivations of ASE in a separate Monte Carlo simulation. The authors also present a sampling error and test statistic for a test of independent sample alphas. They conclude with a recommendation that all alpha coefficients be reported in conjunction with standard error or confidence interval estimates and offer SAS and SPSS programming codes for easy implementation. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Confidence intervals for the overall effect size in random-effects meta-analysis.

One of the main objectives in meta-analysis is to estimate the overall effect size by calculating a confidence interval (CI). The usual procedure consists of assuming a standard normal distribution and a sampling variance defined as the inverse of the sum of the estimated weights of the effect sizes. But this procedure does not take into account the uncertainty due to the fact that the heterogeneity variance (τ2) and the within-study variances have to be estimated, leading to CIs that are too narrow with the consequence that the actual coverage probability is smaller than the nominal confidence level. In this article, the performances of 3 alternatives to the standard CI procedure are examined under a random-effects model and 8 different τ2 estimators to estimate the weights: the t distribution CI, the weighted variance CI (with an improved variance), and the quantile approximation method (recently proposed). The results of a Monte Carlo simulation showed that the weighted variance CI outperformed the other methods regardless of the τ2 estimator, the value of τ2, the number of studies, and the sample size. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Confidence intervals for effect sizes: Compliance and clinical significance in the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology..

Objective: In 2005, the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology (JCCP) became the first American Psychological Association (APA) journal to require statistical measures of clinical significance, plus effect sizes (ESs) and associated confidence intervals (CIs), for primary outcomes (La Greca, 2005). As this represents the single largest editorial effort to improve statistical reporting practices in any APA journal in at least a decade, in this article we investigate the efficacy of that change. Method: All intervention studies published in JCCP in 2003, 2004, 2007, and 2008 were reviewed. Each article was coded for method of clinical significance, type of ES, and type of associated CI, broken down by statistical test (F, t, chi-square, r/R2, and multivariate modeling). Results: By 2008, clinical significance compliance was 75% (up from 31%), with 94% of studies reporting some measure of ES (reporting improved for individual statistical tests ranging from η2 = .05 to .17, with reasonable CIs). Reporting of CIs for ESs also improved, although only to 40%. Also, the vast majority of reported CIs used approximations, which become progressively less accurate for smaller sample sizes and larger ESs (cf. Algina & Kessleman, 2003). Conclusions: Changes are near asymptote for ESs and clinical significance, but CIs lag behind. As CIs for ESs are required for primary outcomes, we show how to compute CIs for the vast majority of ESs reported in JCCP, with an example of how to use CIs for ESs as a method to assess clinical significance. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Statistical inference for a linear function of medians: Confidence intervals, hypothesis testing, and sample size requirements.

When the distribution of the response variable is skewed, the population median may be a more meaningful measure of centrality than the population mean, and when the population distribution of the response variable has heavy tails, the sample median may be a more efficient estimator of centrality than the sample mean. The authors propose a confidence interval for a general linear function of population medians. Linear functions have many important special cases including pairwise comparisons, main effects, interaction effects, simple main effects, curvature, and slope. The confidence interval can be used to test 2-sided directional hypotheses and finite interval hypotheses. Sample size formulas are given for both interval estimation and hypothesis testing problems. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

A comparison of error in five sorting procedures for ordinal ranking.

The effect or sorting procedures on ranking error was investigated. Different groups of Ss ranked a series of 50 stimulus cards using 5 different sorting methods. Significant differences in ranking errors among the 5 methods were observed, with a "free" procedure showing less error than "structured" procedures. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Confidence intervals in repeated-measures designs: The number of observations principle.

Since the publication of Loftus and Masson’s (1994) method for computing confidence intervals (CIs) in repeated-measures (RM) designs, there has been uncertainty about how to apply it to particular effects in complex factorial designs. Masson and Loftus (2003) proposed that RM CIs for factorial designs be based on number of observations rather than number of participants. However, determining the correct number of observations for a particular effect can be complicated, given the variety of effects occurring in factorial designs. In this paper the authors define a general “number of observations” principle, explain why it obtains, and provide step-by-step instructions for constructing CIs for various effect types. The authors illustrate these procedures with numerical examples. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Point estimates and confidence intervals in measures of association.

Examined 6 statistics for estimating the population correlation ratio, ρ–2 (the proportionate reduction in error or variance explained index), for bias. Findings reveal that the expected value of an adjusted version of the sample correlation ratio, η?–2, was slightly less biased and less consistent than ω–2 or ε–2 with small population effects and sample sizes. A simplified method for generating approximate confidence intervals for ρ–2 was developed and found to be efficient relative to computation time. (25 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

A score method of constructing asymmetric confidence intervals for the mean of a rating scale item.

This article presents a generalization of the Score method of constructing confidence intervals for the population proportion (E. B. Wilson, 1927) to the case of the population mean of a rating scale item. A simulation study was conducted to assess the properties of the Score confidence interval in relation to the traditional Wald (A. Wald, 1943) confidence interval under a variety of conditions, including sample size, number of response options, extremeness of the population mean, and kurtosis of the response distribution. The results of the simulation study indicated that the Score interval usually outperformed the Wald interval, suggesting that the Score interval is a viable method of constructing confidence intervals for the population mean of a rating scale item. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Toward using confidence intervals to compare correlations.

Confidence intervals are widely accepted as a preferred way to present study results. They encompass significance tests and provide an estimate of the magnitude of the effect. However, comparisons of correlations still rely heavily on significance testing. The persistence of this practice is caused primarily by the lack of simple yet accurate procedures that can maintain coverage at the nominal level in a nonlopsided manner. The purpose of this article is to present a general approach to constructing approximate confidence intervals for differences between (a) 2 independent correlations, (b) 2 overlapping correlations, (c) 2 nonoverlapping correlations, and (d) 2 independent R2s. The distinctive feature of this approach is its acknowledgment of the asymmetry of sampling distributions for single correlations. This approach requires only the availability of confidence limits for the separate correlations and, for correlated correlations, a method for taking into account the dependency between correlations. These closed-form procedures are shown by simulation studies to provide very satisfactory results in small to moderate sample sizes. The proposed approach is illustrated with worked examples. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Confidence intervals for standardized linear contrasts of means.

Most psychology journals now require authors to report a sample value of effect size along with hypothesis testing results. The sample effect size value can be misleading because it contains sampling error. Authors often incorrectly interpret the sample effect size as if it were the population effect size. A simple solution to this problem is to report a confidence interval for the population value of the effect size. Standardized linear contrasts of means are useful measures of effect size in a wide variety of research applications. New confidence intervals for standardized linear contrasts of means are developed and may be applied to between-subjects designs, within-subjects designs, or mixed designs. The proposed confidence interval methods are easy to compute, do not require equal population variances, and perform better than the currently available methods when the population variances are not equal. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Local and Global Judgments of Confidence.

Studies of calibration have shown that people's mean confidence in their answers (local confidence) tends to be greater than their overall estimate of the percentage of correct answers (global confidence). Moreover, whereas the former exhibits overconfidence, the latter often exhibits underconfidence. Three studies present evidence that global underconfidence reflects a failure to make an allowance for correct answers that are likely to result from mere guessing and can be eliminated by informing participants of the dubious normative status of estimates below 50% (i.e., chance). Previously reported discrepancies between global and local confidence, it is concluded, arise less from possible methodological artifacts in assessment of local confidence than from normatively inappropriate assessments of global confidence. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Knowledge of the ordinal position of list items in pigeons.

Ordinal knowledge is a fundamental aspect of advanced cognition. It is self-evident that humans represent ordinal knowledge, and over the past 20 years it has become clear that nonhuman primates share this ability. In contrast, evidence that nonprimate species represent ordinal knowledge is missing from the comparative literature. To address this issue, in the present experiment we trained pigeons on three 4-item lists and then tested them with derived lists in which, relative to the training lists, the ordinal position of the items was either maintained or changed. Similar to the findings with human and nonhuman primates, our pigeons performed markedly better on the maintained lists compared to the changed lists, and displayed errors consistent with the view that they used their knowledge of ordinal position to guide responding on the derived lists. These findings demonstrate that the ability to acquire ordinal knowledge is not unique to the primate lineage. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)     

On Confidence Intervals for Within-Subjects Designs.

Confidence intervals (CIs) for means are frequently advocated as alternatives to null hypothesis significance testing (NHST), for which a common theme in the debate is that conclusions from CIs and NHST should be mutually consistent. The authors examined a class of CIs for which the conclusions are said to be inconsistent with NHST in within-subjects designs and a class for which the conclusions are said to be consistent. The difference between them is a difference in models. In particular, the main issue is that the class for which the conclusions are said to be consistent derives from fixed-effects models with subjects fixed, not mixed models with subjects random. Offered is mixed model methodology that has been popularized in the statistical literature and statistical software procedures. Generalizations to different classes of within-subjects designs are explored, and comments on the future direction of the debate on NHST are offered. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Accuracy in parameter estimation for targeted effects in structural equation modeling: Sample size planning for narrow confidence intervals.

In addition to evaluating a structural equation model (SEM) as a whole, often the model parameters are of interest and confidence intervals for those parameters are formed. Given a model with a good overall fit, it is entirely possible for the targeted effects of interest to have very wide confidence intervals, thus giving little information about the magnitude of the population targeted effects. With the goal of obtaining sufficiently narrow confidence intervals for the model parameters of interest, sample size planning methods for SEM are developed from the accuracy in parameter estimation approach. One method plans for the sample size so that the expected confidence interval width is sufficiently narrow. An extended procedure ensures that the obtained confidence interval will be no wider than desired, with some specified degree of assurance. A Monte Carlo simulation study was conducted that verified the effectiveness of the procedures in realistic situations. The methods developed have been implemented in the MBESS package in R so that they can be easily applied by researchers. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)     

滴定法测定锰矿中锰的测量不确定度评定

采用高氯酸氧化硫酸亚铁铵滴定法测定锰矿中锰含量,应用统计学理论对其分析结果不确定度的产生原因进行分析,建立测量过程分量的数学模型,分析测量过程不确定度来源及各不确定度分量对总不确定度的影响,确定测定结果的置信区间。给出锰矿中锰的含量及其置信区间为27．20％±0．10％。