A careful consideration of CLARIFY: simulation-induced bias in point estimates of quantities of interest

IF 2.5 2区 社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE Political Science Research and Methods Pub Date : 2023-04-28 DOI:10.1017/psrm.2023.8
Carlisle Rainey
{"title":"A careful consideration of CLARIFY: simulation-induced bias in point estimates of quantities of interest","authors":"Carlisle Rainey","doi":"10.1017/psrm.2023.8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Some work in political methodology recommends that applied researchers obtain point estimates of quantities of interest by simulating model coefficients, transforming these simulated coefficients into simulated quantities of interest, and then averaging the simulated quantities of interest (e.g., CLARIFY). But other work advises applied researchers to directly transform coefficient estimates to estimate quantities of interest. I point out that these two approaches are not interchangeable and examine their properties. I show that the simulation approach compounds the transformation-induced bias identified by Rainey (2017), adding bias with direction and magnitude similar to the transformation-induced bias. I refer to this easily avoided additional bias as “simulation-induced bias.” Even if researchers use simulation to estimate standard errors, they should directly transform maximum likelihood estimates of coefficient estimates to obtain point estimates of quantities of interest.","PeriodicalId":47311,"journal":{"name":"Political Science Research and Methods","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Political Science Research and Methods","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2023.8","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Some work in political methodology recommends that applied researchers obtain point estimates of quantities of interest by simulating model coefficients, transforming these simulated coefficients into simulated quantities of interest, and then averaging the simulated quantities of interest (e.g., CLARIFY). But other work advises applied researchers to directly transform coefficient estimates to estimate quantities of interest. I point out that these two approaches are not interchangeable and examine their properties. I show that the simulation approach compounds the transformation-induced bias identified by Rainey (2017), adding bias with direction and magnitude similar to the transformation-induced bias. I refer to this easily avoided additional bias as “simulation-induced bias.” Even if researchers use simulation to estimate standard errors, they should directly transform maximum likelihood estimates of coefficient estimates to obtain point estimates of quantities of interest.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
仔细考虑在兴趣量的点估计中模拟引起的偏差
政治方法学中的一些工作建议,应用研究人员通过模拟模型系数,将这些模拟系数转换为模拟感兴趣量,然后对模拟感兴趣的量取平均值,来获得感兴趣量的点估计值(例如,CLARIFY)。但其他工作建议应用研究人员直接转换系数估计值来估计感兴趣的数量。我指出,这两种方法是不可互换的,并考察了它们的性质。我表明,模拟方法复合了Rainey(2017)确定的转化诱导的偏差,添加了方向和大小与转化诱导的偏见相似的偏见。我将这种容易避免的额外偏差称为“模拟引起的偏差”。即使研究人员使用模拟来估计标准误差,他们也应该直接转换系数估计的最大似然估计,以获得感兴趣量的点估计。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
54
期刊最新文献
Partisan communication in two-stage elections: the effect of primaries on intra-campaign positional shifts in congressional elections Election symbols and vote choice: evidence from India Local elections do not increase local news demand The (in)effectiveness of populist rhetoric: a conjoint experiment of campaign messaging Evaluating methods for examining the relative persuasiveness of policy arguments
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1