4 resultados para BIAS CORRECTION
em University of Queensland eSpace - Australia
Resumo:
In large epidemiological studies missing data can be a problem, especially if information is sought on a sensitive topic or when a composite measure is calculated from several variables each affected by missing values. Multiple imputation is the method of choice for 'filling in' missing data based on associations among variables. Using an example about body mass index from the Australian Longitudinal Study on Women's Health, we identify a subset of variables that are particularly useful for imputing values for the target variables. Then we illustrate two uses of multiple imputation. The first is to examine and correct for bias when data are not missing completely at random. The second is to impute missing values for an important covariate; in this case omission from the imputation process of variables to be used in the analysis may introduce bias. We conclude with several recommendations for handling issues of missing data. Copyright (C) 2004 John Wiley Sons, Ltd.
Resumo:
The use of presence/absence data in wildlife management and biological surveys is widespread. There is a growing interest in quantifying the sources of error associated with these data. We show that false-negative errors (failure to record a species when in fact it is present) can have a significant impact on statistical estimation of habitat models using simulated data. Then we introduce an extension of logistic modeling, the zero-inflated binomial (ZIB) model that permits the estimation of the rate of false-negative errors and the correction of estimates of the probability of occurrence for false-negative errors by using repeated. visits to the same site. Our simulations show that even relatively low rates of false negatives bias statistical estimates of habitat effects. The method with three repeated visits eliminates the bias, but estimates are relatively imprecise. Six repeated visits improve precision of estimates to levels comparable to that achieved with conventional statistics in the absence of false-negative errors In general, when error rates are less than or equal to50% greater efficiency is gained by adding more sites, whereas when error rates are >50% it is better to increase the number of repeated visits. We highlight the flexibility of the method with three case studies, clearly demonstrating the effect of false-negative errors for a range of commonly used survey methods.