Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 150

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Small‐sample adjustments in using the sandwich variance estimator in generalized estimating equations

Pan, Wei, Wall, Melanie M.·2002·Statistics in Medicine
DOI 10.1002/sim.1142
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The generalized estimating equation (GEE) approach is widely used in regression analyses with correlated response data. Under mild conditions, the resulting regression coefficient estimator is consistent and asymptotically normal with its variance being consistently estimated by the so‐called sandwich estimator. Statistical inference is thus accomplished by using the asymptotic Wald chi‐squared test. However, it has been noted in the literature that for small samples the sandwich estimator may not perform well and may lead to much inflated type I errors for the Wald chi‐squared test. Here we propose using an approximate t‐ or F‐test that takes account of the variability of the sandwich estimator. The level of type I error of the proposed t‐ or F‐test is guaranteed to be no larger than that of the Wald chi‐squared test. The satisfactory performance of the proposed new tests is confirmed in a simulation study. Our proposal also has some advantages when compared with other new approaches based on direct modifications of the sandwich estimator, including the one that corrects the downward bias of the sandwich estimator. In addition to hypothesis testing, our result has a clear implication on constructing Wald‐type confidence intervals or regions. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/sim.1142

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Research works printed but not linked: 20

  1. 10.1093/biomet/73.1.13 · DOI · Paper page
  2. 10.2307/2531733 · DOI · Paper page
  3. 10.1214/ss/1177010900 · DOI
  4. 10.1080/00949659208811388 · DOI
  5. 10.1080/03610919508813280 · DOI
  6. 10.2307/2534007 · DOI
  7. 10.1111/j.0006-341X.2001.00126.x · DOI · Paper page
  8. 10.1093/biomet/88.3.901 · DOI
  9. 10.1007/BF02288586 · DOI · Paper page
  10. 10.2307/2531734 · DOI · Paper page
  11. 10.1007/978-1-4612-0795-5 · DOI · Paper page
  12. 10.1093/biomet/77.3.485 · DOI · Paper page
  13. 10.2307/2532240 · DOI · Paper page
  14. Vonesh EF, 1997, Linear and Nonlinear Models for the Analysis of Repeated Measurements
  15. 10.2307/2683985 · doi:10.2307/2683985
  16. Fleiss J, 1986, The Design and Analysis of Clinical Experiments
  17. Cochran WG, 1957, Experimental Designs
  18. 10.1016/0197-2456(93)90021-5 · DOI
  19. 10.2307/2288715 · DOI
  20. 10.2307/2530872 · DOI

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Pan, W., & Wall, M. M.
Venue
Statistics in Medicine
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2002-04-26
Volume
21
Issue
10
Pages
1429-1441
ISSN
  • 0277-6715
  • 1097-0258
DOI
10.1002/sim.1142
Cited by
150
References
1
Language
en
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.