IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0288069.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Which method is optimal for estimating variance components and their variability in generalizability theory? evidence form a set of unified rules for bootstrap method

Author

Listed:
  • Guangming Li

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of this study is to compare the performance of the four estimation methods (traditional method, jackknife method, bootstrap method, and MCMC method), find the optimal one, and make a set of unified rules for Bootstrap. Methods: Based on four types of simulated data (normal, dichotomous, polytomous, and skewed data), this study estimates and compares the estimated variance components and their variability of the four estimation methods when using a p×i design in generalizability theory. The estimated variance components are vc.p, vc.i and vc.pi and the variability of estimated variance components are their estimated standard errors (SE(vc.p), SE(vc.i) and SE(vc.pi)) and confidence intervals (CI(vc.p), CI(vc.i) and CI(vc.pi)). Results: For the normal data, all the four methods can accurately estimate the variance components and their variability. For the dichotomous data, the |RPB| of SE (vc.i) of traditional method is 128.5714, the |RPB| of SE (vc.i), SE (vc.pi) and CI (vc.i) of jackknife method are 42.8571, 43.6893 and 40.5000, which are larger than 25 and not accurate. For the polytomous data, the |RPB| of SE (vc.i) and CI (vc.i) of MCMC method are 59.6612 and 45.2500, which are larger than 25 and not accurate. For the skewed data, the |RPB| of SE (vc.p), SE (vc.i) and SE (vc. pi) of traditional method and MCMC method are over 25, which are not accurate. Only the bootstrap method can estimate variance components and their variability accurately across different data distribution. Nonetheless, the divide-and-conquer strategy must be used when adopting the bootstrap method. Conclusions: The bootstrap method is optimal among the four methods and shows the cross-distribution superiority over the other three methods. However, a set of unified rules for the divide-and-conquer strategy need to be recommended for the bootstrap method, which is optimal when boot-p for p (person), boot-pi for i (item), and boot-i for pi (person × item).

Suggested Citation

  • Guangming Li, 2023. "Which method is optimal for estimating variance components and their variability in generalizability theory? evidence form a set of unified rules for bootstrap method," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(7), pages 1-18, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0288069
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0288069
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0288069
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0288069&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0288069?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0288069. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.