IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v25y2005i3p663-675.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Quantitative Analysis of Variability and Uncertainty with Known Measurement Error: Methodology and Case Study

Author

Listed:
  • Junyu Zheng
  • H. Christopher Frey

Abstract

The appearance of measurement error in exposure and risk factor data potentially affects any inferences regarding variability and uncertainty because the distribution representing the observed data set deviates from the distribution that represents an error‐free data set. A methodology for improving the characterization of variability and uncertainty with known measurement errors in data is demonstrated in this article based on an observed data set, known measurement error, and a measurement‐error model. A practical method for constructing an error‐free data set is presented and a numerical method based upon bootstrap pairs, incorporating two‐dimensional Monte Carlo simulation, is introduced to address uncertainty arising from measurement error in selected statistics. When measurement error is a large source of uncertainty, substantial differences between the distribution representing variability of the observed data set and the distribution representing variability of the error‐free data set will occur. Furthermore, the shape and range of the probability bands for uncertainty differ between the observed and error‐free data set. Failure to separately characterize contributions from random sampling error and measurement error will lead to bias in the variability and uncertainty estimates. However, a key finding is that total uncertainty in mean can be properly quantified even if measurement and random sampling errors cannot be separated. An empirical case study is used to illustrate the application of the methodology.

Suggested Citation

  • Junyu Zheng & H. Christopher Frey, 2005. "Quantitative Analysis of Variability and Uncertainty with Known Measurement Error: Methodology and Case Study," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(3), pages 663-675, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:25:y:2005:i:3:p:663-675
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2005.00620.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2005.00620.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2005.00620.x?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yuchao Zhao & H. Christopher Frey, 2004. "Quantification of Variability and Uncertainty for Censored Data Sets and Application to Air Toxic Emission Factors," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(4), pages 1019-1034, August.
    2. F. Owen Hoffman & Jana S. Hammonds, 1994. "Propagation of Uncertainty in Risk Assessments: The Need to Distinguish Between Uncertainty Due to Lack of Knowledge and Uncertainty Due to Variability," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(5), pages 707-712, October.
    3. Dale Hattis & Ken Silver, 1994. "Human Interindividual Variability–A Major Source of Uncertainty in Assessing Risks for Noncancer Health Effects," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(4), pages 421-431, August.
    4. Kenneth T. Bogen & Robert C. Spear, 1987. "Integrating Uncertainty and Interindividual Variability in Environmental Risk Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 7(4), pages 427-436, December.
    5. Junyu Zheng & H. Christopher Frey, 2004. "Quantification of Variability and Uncertainty Using Mixture Distributions: Evaluation of Sample Size, Mixing Weights, and Separation Between Components," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(3), pages 553-571, June.
    6. Aigner, Dennis & Lovell, C. A. Knox & Schmidt, Peter, 1977. "Formulation and estimation of stochastic frontier production function models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 6(1), pages 21-37, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Laura Gabrielli & Aurora Greta Ruggeri & Massimiliano Scarpa, 2023. "Roadmap to a Sustainable Energy System: Is Uncertainty a Major Barrier to Investments for Building Energy Retrofit Projects in Wide City Compartments?," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(11), pages 1-21, May.
    2. Aurora Greta Ruggeri & Laura Gabrielli & Massimiliano Scarpa, 2020. "Energy Retrofit in European Building Portfolios: A Review of Five Key Aspects," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-38, September.
    3. Guido Sassi & Bernardo Ruggeri, 2008. "Uncertainty Evaluation of Human Risk Analysis (HRA) of Chemicals by Multiple Exposure Routes," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(5), pages 1343-1356, October.
    4. John P. Buonaccorsi & Giovanni Romeo & Magne Thoresen, 2018. "Model†based bootstrapping when correcting for measurement error with application to logistic regression," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 74(1), pages 135-144, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bas Groot Koerkamp & Theo Stijnen & Milton C. Weinstein & M. G. Myriam Hunink, 2011. "The Combined Analysis of Uncertainty and Patient Heterogeneity in Medical Decision Models," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(4), pages 650-661, July.
    2. Junyu Zheng & H. Christopher Frey, 2004. "Quantification of Variability and Uncertainty Using Mixture Distributions: Evaluation of Sample Size, Mixing Weights, and Separation Between Components," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(3), pages 553-571, June.
    3. Paul S. Price & Cynthia L. Curry & Philip E. Goodrum & Michael N. Gray & Jane I. McCrodden & Natalie W. Harrington & Heather Carlson‐Lynch & Russell E. Keenan, 1996. "Monte Carlo Modeling of Time‐Dependent Exposures Using a Microexposure Event Approach," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(3), pages 339-348, June.
    4. Paul S. Price & Steave H. Su & Jeff R. Harrington & Russell E. Keenan, 1996. "Uncertainty and Variation in Indirect Exposure Assessments: An Analysis of Exposure to Tetrachlorodibenzo‐p‐Dioxin from a Beef Consumption Pathway," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(2), pages 263-277, April.
    5. H. Christopher Frey & David E. Burmaster, 1999. "Methods for Characterizing Variability and Uncertainty: Comparison of Bootstrap Simulation and Likelihood‐Based Approaches," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(1), pages 109-130, February.
    6. Paul Hewson & Keming Yu, 2008. "Quantile regression for binary performance indicators," Applied Stochastic Models in Business and Industry, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(5), pages 401-418, September.
    7. Hasan, Iftekhar & Lozano-Vivas, Ana, 2002. "Organizational Form and Expense Preference: Spanish Experience," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(2), pages 135-150, April.
    8. Tom Kompas & Tuong Nhu Che & R. Quentin Grafton, 2004. "Technical efficiency effects of input controls: evidence from Australia's banana prawn fishery," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(15), pages 1631-1641.
    9. Richard A. Hofler & John A. List, 2004. "Valuation on the Frontier: Calibrating Actual and Hypothetical Statements of Value," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(1), pages 213-221.
    10. Lundgren, Tommy & Marklund, Per-Olov & Zhang, Shanshan, 2016. "Industrial energy demand and energy efficiency – Evidence from Sweden," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 130-152.
    11. Daniel Solís & Boris E. Bravo‐Ureta & Ricardo E. Quiroga, 2009. "Technical Efficiency among Peasant Farmers Participating in Natural Resource Management Programmes in Central America," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(1), pages 202-219, February.
    12. Subhash C. Ray, 2004. "A Simple Statistical Test of Violation of the Weak Axiom of Cost Minimization," Indian Economic Review, Department of Economics, Delhi School of Economics, vol. 39(1), pages 111-121, January.
    13. Andriakopoulos, Konstantinos & Ladas, Augoustinos & Andriakopoulos, Panagiotis, 2020. "Bank efficiency and leasing in U.S.A. banking system," MPRA Paper 112645, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Jan Kluge & Sarah Lappöhn & Kerstin Plank, 2023. "Predictors of TFP growth in European countries," Empirica, Springer;Austrian Institute for Economic Research;Austrian Economic Association, vol. 50(1), pages 109-140, February.
    15. Raushan Bokusheva & Lukáš Čechura & Subal C. Kumbhakar, 2023. "Estimating persistent and transient technical efficiency and their determinants in the presence of heterogeneity and endogeneity," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 74(2), pages 450-472, June.
    16. Giovanni Calice & Levent Kutlu & Ming Zeng, 2021. "Understanding US firm efficiency and its asset pricing implications," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 60(2), pages 803-827, February.
    17. Kwan, Simon H., 2006. "The X-efficiency of commercial banks in Hong Kong," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 1127-1147, April.
    18. repec:lan:wpaper:4471 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Barros, Carlos Pestana & Williams, Jonathan, 2013. "The random parameters stochastic frontier cost function and the effectiveness of public policy: Evidence from bank restructuring in Mexico," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 98-108.
    20. Khanal, Aditya & Koirala, Krishna & Regmi, Madhav, 2016. "Do Financial Constraints Affect Production Efficiency in Drought Prone Areas? A Case from Indonesian Rice Growers," 2016 Annual Meeting, February 6-9, 2016, San Antonio, Texas 230087, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    21. Wu, Yanrui, 1995. "The productive efficiency of Chinese iron and steel firms A stochastic frontier analysis," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 215-222, September.

    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:wly:riskan:v:25:y:2005:i:3:p:663-675. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    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.