IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/amstat/v73y2019i2p117-125.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Revisiting Nested Group Testing Procedures: New Results, Comparisons, and Robustness

Author

Listed:
  • Yaakov Malinovsky
  • Paul S. Albert

Abstract

Group testing has its origin in the identification of syphilis in the U.S. army during World War II. Much of the theoretical framework of group testing was developed starting in the late 1950s, with continued work into the 1990s. Recently, with the advent of new laboratory and genetic technologies, there has been an increasing interest in group testing designs for cost saving purposes. In this article, we compare different nested designs, including Dorfman, Sterrett and an optimal nested procedure obtained through dynamic programming. To elucidate these comparisons, we develop closed-form expressions for the optimal Sterrett procedure and provide a concise review of the prior literature for other commonly used procedures. We consider designs where the prevalence of disease is known as well as investigate the robustness of these procedures, when it is incorrectly assumed. This article provides a technical presentation that will be of interest to researchers as well as from a pedagogical perspective. Supplementary material for this article is available online.

Suggested Citation

  • Yaakov Malinovsky & Paul S. Albert, 2019. "Revisiting Nested Group Testing Procedures: New Results, Comparisons, and Robustness," The American Statistician, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 73(2), pages 117-125, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:amstat:v:73:y:2019:i:2:p:117-125
    DOI: 10.1080/00031305.2017.1366367
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/00031305.2017.1366367
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/00031305.2017.1366367?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    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:taf:amstat:v:73:y:2019:i:2:p:117-125. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/UTAS20 .

    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.