IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/csdana/v54y2010i4p1103-1108.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A simulation study comparing methods for calculating confidence intervals for directly standardized rates

Author

Listed:
  • Swift, Michael Bruce

Abstract

This study provides a supplemental report of the performance of the confidence interval for direct standardized rates obtained by the approximate bootstrap method (ABC) method. The ABC method was not considered by the Ng et al. (2008) paper which compared different methods of interval construction. A graphical comparison of the coverage probability and the ratio of the right to left non-coverage probabilities, as a function of the variance in the weights used for each simulation point, are given for the ABC method, as well as three of the recommended procedures by Ng et al. The expected confidence interval lengths are also reported. The ABC intervals are shown to be good competitors compared with the other three confidence intervals.

Suggested Citation

  • Swift, Michael Bruce, 2010. "A simulation study comparing methods for calculating confidence intervals for directly standardized rates," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 54(4), pages 1103-1108, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:csdana:v:54:y:2010:i:4:p:1103-1108
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167-9473(09)00402-2
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only.
    ---><---

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ng, Hon Keung Tony & Filardo, Giovanni & Zheng, Gang, 2008. "Confidence interval estimating procedures for standardized incidence rates," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 52(7), pages 3501-3516, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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.

      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:eee:csdana:v:54:y:2010:i:4:p:1103-1108. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/csda .

      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.