{"title":"Tests of linear hypotheses using indirect information","authors":"Andrew McCormack, Peter D. Hoff","doi":"10.1002/cjs.11760","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>In multigroup data settings with small within-group sample sizes, standard <math>\n <semantics>\n <mrow>\n <mi>F</mi>\n </mrow>\n <annotation>$$ F $$</annotation>\n </semantics></math>-tests of group-specific linear hypotheses can have low power, particularly if the within-group sample sizes are not large relative to the number of explanatory variables. To remedy this situation, in this article we derive alternative test statistics based on information sharing across groups. Each group-specific test has potentially much larger power than the standard <math>\n <semantics>\n <mrow>\n <mi>F</mi>\n </mrow>\n <annotation>$$ F $$</annotation>\n </semantics></math>-test, while still exactly maintaining a target type I error rate if the null hypothesis for the group is true. The proposed test for a given group uses a statistic that has optimal marginal power under a prior distribution derived from the data of the other groups. This statistic approaches the usual <math>\n <semantics>\n <mrow>\n <mi>F</mi>\n </mrow>\n <annotation>$$ F $$</annotation>\n </semantics></math>-statistic as the prior distribution becomes more diffuse, but approaches a limiting “cone” test statistic as the prior distribution becomes extremely concentrated. We compare the power and <math>\n <semantics>\n <mrow>\n <mi>P</mi>\n </mrow>\n <annotation>$$ P $$</annotation>\n </semantics></math>-values of the cone test to that of the <math>\n <semantics>\n <mrow>\n <mi>F</mi>\n </mrow>\n <annotation>$$ F $$</annotation>\n </semantics></math>-test in some high-dimensional asymptotic scenarios. An analysis of educational outcome data is provided, demonstrating empirically that the proposed test is more powerful than the <math>\n <semantics>\n <mrow>\n <mi>F</mi>\n </mrow>\n <annotation>$$ F $$</annotation>\n </semantics></math>-test.</p>","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-02-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"100","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cjs.11760","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
In multigroup data settings with small within-group sample sizes, standard -tests of group-specific linear hypotheses can have low power, particularly if the within-group sample sizes are not large relative to the number of explanatory variables. To remedy this situation, in this article we derive alternative test statistics based on information sharing across groups. Each group-specific test has potentially much larger power than the standard -test, while still exactly maintaining a target type I error rate if the null hypothesis for the group is true. The proposed test for a given group uses a statistic that has optimal marginal power under a prior distribution derived from the data of the other groups. This statistic approaches the usual -statistic as the prior distribution becomes more diffuse, but approaches a limiting “cone” test statistic as the prior distribution becomes extremely concentrated. We compare the power and -values of the cone test to that of the -test in some high-dimensional asymptotic scenarios. An analysis of educational outcome data is provided, demonstrating empirically that the proposed test is more powerful than the -test.
在组内样本量较小的多组数据设置中,组内特定线性假设的标准F $$ F $$检验可能具有较低的功效,特别是当组内样本量相对于解释变量的数量并不大时。为了纠正这种情况,在本文中,我们基于组间的信息共享导出了可选的测试统计信息。如果组的零假设为真,则每个组特定的测试可能比标准F $$ F $$ - test的功率大得多,同时仍然完全保持目标I型错误率。对于给定的组,建议的测试使用在从其他组的数据导出的先验分布下具有最优边际功率的统计量。当先验分布变得更加分散时,该统计量接近通常的F $$ F $$统计量,但当先验分布变得极其集中时,该统计量接近极限“锥”检验统计量。在一些高维渐近情形下,我们比较了锥检验与F $$ F $$检验的幂和P $$ P $$ -值。对教育成果数据的分析提供,实证证明,提出的测试比F $$ F $$‐测试更强大。