Search

With clustered data, such as where students are nested within schools or employees are nested within organizations, it is often of interest to estimate and compare associations among variables separately for each level. While researchers routinely estimate between-cluster effects using the sample cluster means of a predictor, previous research has shown that such practice leads to biased estimates of coefficients at the between level, and recent research has recommended the use of latent cluster means with the multilevel structural equation modeling framework. However, the latent cluster mean approach may not always be the best choice as it (a) relies on the assumption that the population cluster sizes are close to infinite, (b) requires a relatively large number of clusters, and (c) is currently only implemented in specialized software such as Mplus. In this paper, we show how using empirical Bayes estimates of the cluster means can also lead to consistent estimates of between-level coefficients, and illustrate how the empirical Bayes estimate can incorporate finite population corrections when information on population cluster sizes is available. Through a series of Monte Carlo simulation studies, we show that the empirical Bayes cluster-mean approach performs similarly to the latent cluster mean approach for estimating the between-cluster coefficients in most conditions when the infinite-population assumption holds, and applying the finite population correction provides reasonable point and interval estimates when the population is finite. The performance of EBM can be further improved with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and likelihood-based confidence intervals. We also provide an R function that implements the empirical Bayes cluster-mean approach, and illustrate it using data from the classic High School and Beyond Study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Epidemiologic screening programs often make use of tests with small, but nonzero probabilities of misdiagnosis. In this article, we assume the target population is finite with a fixed number of true cases, and that we apply an imperfect test with known sensitivity and specificity to a sample of individuals from the population. In this setting, we propose an enhanced inferential approach for use in conjunction with sampling-based bias-corrected prevalence estimation. While ignoring the finite nature of the population can yield markedly conservative estimates, direct application of a standard finite population correction (FPC) conversely leads to underestimation of variance. We uncover a way to leverage the typical FPC indirectly toward valid statistical inference. In particular, we derive a readily estimable extra variance component induced by misclassification in this specific but arguably common diagnostic testing scenario. Our approach yields a standard error estimate that properly captures the sampling variability of the usual bias-corrected maximum likelihood estimator of disease prevalence. Finally, we develop an adapted Bayesian credible interval for the true prevalence that offers improved frequentist properties (i.e., coverage and width) relative to a Wald-type confidence interval. We report the simulation results to demonstrate the enhanced performance of the proposed inferential methods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Classical randomized experiments, equipped with randomization-based inference, provide assumption-free inference for treatment effects. They have been the gold standard for drawing causal inference and provide excellent internal validity. However, they have also been criticized for questionable external validity, in the sense that the conclusion may not generalize well to a larger population. The randomized survey experiment is a design tool that can help mitigate this concern, by randomly selecting the experimental units from the target population of interest. However, as pointed out by Morgan and Rubin, chance imbalances often exist in covariate distributions between different treatment groups even under completely randomized experiments. Not surprisingly, such covariate imbalances also occur in randomized survey experiments. Furthermore, the covariate imbalances happen not only between different treatment groups, but also between the sampled experimental units and the overall population of interest. In this article, we propose a two-stage rerandomization design that can actively avoid undesirable covariate imbalances at both the sampling and treatment assignment stages. We further develop asymptotic theory for rerandomized survey experiments, demonstrating that rerandomization provides better covariate balance, more precise treatment effect estimators, and shorter large-sample confidence intervals. We also propose covariate adjustment to deal with remaining covariate imbalances after rerandomization, showing that it can further improve both the sampling and estimated precision. Our work allows general relationship among covariates at the sampling, treatment assignment and analysis stages, and generalizes both rerandomization in classical randomized experiments and rejective sampling in survey sampling. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present study was conducted to determine the extent of observation of patients' privacy by physicians and nurses and its relationship with patient satisfaction. This descriptive correlational study was conducted on 600 patients selected by convenience sampling. Based on the patients' points of view, the level of observation of patients' privacy and its dimensions, especially the psychosocial dimension, were reported to be higher in nurses than in physicians. Pearson's correlation coefficient showed a direct and significant relationship between the observation of privacy by the nurses and physicians and different dimensions of patient satisfaction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Evaluating the importance and the strength of empirical evidence requires asking three questions: First, what are the practical implications of the findings? Second, how precise are the estimates? Confidence intervals provide an intuitive way to communicate precision. Although nontechnical audiences often misinterpret confidence intervals (CIs), I argue that the result is less dangerous than the misunderstandings that arise from hypothesis tests. Third, is the model correctly specified? The validity of point estimates and CIs depends on the soundness of the underlying model. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This pilot study was conducted using a sample of 374 Portuguese occupational therapists to evaluate burnout levels and prevalence among occupational therapists as well as to relate those levels to practitioner age, gender, client age, years of professional activity, and area of practice. The Copenhagen Burnout Inventory questionnaire (Portuguese version) and a sociodemographic questionnaire was used. Results showed that ∼23%, 44%, and 45% of occupational therapists presented with client-related burnout, personal burnout (PB), and work-related burnout, respectively. Higher rates of burnout were observed across all dimensions as the age of the professionals increased, with more years of working increased the client-rated rate, and client age increased the PB rate. Outcomes suggest a need to implement intervention programs to promote personal and organizational strategies to prevent burnout. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background:The use of the borderline regression method (BRM) is a widely accepted standard setting method for OSCEs. However, it is unclear whether this method is appropriate for use with small cohorts (e.g. specialist post-graduate examinations). Aims and methods:This work uses an innovative application of resampling methods applied to four pre-existing OSCE data sets (number of stations between 17 and 21) from two institutions to investigate how the robustness of the BRM changes as the cohort size varies. Using a variety of metrics, the ‘quality’ of an OSCE is evaluated for cohorts of approximatelyn = 300 down ton = 15. Estimates of the standard error in station-level and overall pass marks,R2coefficient, and Cronbach’s alpha are all calculated as cohort size varies. Results and conclusion: For larger cohorts (n > 200), the standard error in the overall pass mark is small (less than 0.5%), and for individual stations is of the order of 1–2%. These errors grow as the sample size reduces, with cohorts of less than 50 candidates showing unacceptably large standard error. Alpha andR2also become unstable for small cohorts. The resampling methodology is shown to be robust and has the potential to be more widely applied in standard setting and medical assessment quality assurance and research. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The authors express their views on an article by Ian McKeague and Min Qian on statistical research that is published in this issue. Topics discussed include the cumulative distribution function (c.d.f.) of the estimation error; estimation error when testing a null hypothesis; and confidence interval mentioned in the article that is obtained through the limit distribution from Theorem 1.

The authors express their views on an article on bootstrap-based methods for statistical estimation, that is published in this issue. Topics discussed include correlation coefficients in a linear regression model; estimation of confidence intervals for adaptive bootstrap methods; and normalized estimation error in regression analysis.