The biasing effects of selection and attrition on estimating the mean

IF 1.5 3区 心理学 Q3 MATHEMATICS, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS British Journal of Mathematical & Statistical Psychology Pub Date : 2022-08-07 DOI:10.1111/bmsp.12284
Seunghoo Lee, Jorge Mendoza
{"title":"The biasing effects of selection and attrition on estimating the mean","authors":"Seunghoo Lee,&nbsp;Jorge Mendoza","doi":"10.1111/bmsp.12284","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Organizational and validation researchers often work with data that has been subjected to selection on the predictor and attrition on the criterion. These researchers often use the data observed under these conditions to estimate either the predictor or criterion's restricted population means. We show that the restricted means due to direct or indirect selection are a function of the population means plus the selection ratios. Thus, any difference between selected mean groups reflects the population difference plus the selection ratio difference. When there is also attrition on the criterion, the estimation of group differences becomes even more complicated. The effect of selection and attrition induces measurement bias when estimating the restricted population mean of either the predictor or criterion. A sample mean observed under selection and attrition does not estimate either the population mean or the restricted population mean. We propose several procedures under normality that yield unbiased estimates of the mean. The procedures focus on correcting the effects of selection and attrition. Each procedure was evaluated with a Monte Carlo simulation to ascertain its strengths and weaknesses. Given appropriate sample size and conditions, we show that these procedures yield unbiased estimators of the restricted and unrestricted population means for both predictor and criterion. We also show how our findings have implications for replicating selected group differences.</p>","PeriodicalId":55322,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Mathematical & Statistical Psychology","volume":"76 1","pages":"106-130"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of Mathematical & Statistical Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bmsp.12284","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MATHEMATICS, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Organizational and validation researchers often work with data that has been subjected to selection on the predictor and attrition on the criterion. These researchers often use the data observed under these conditions to estimate either the predictor or criterion's restricted population means. We show that the restricted means due to direct or indirect selection are a function of the population means plus the selection ratios. Thus, any difference between selected mean groups reflects the population difference plus the selection ratio difference. When there is also attrition on the criterion, the estimation of group differences becomes even more complicated. The effect of selection and attrition induces measurement bias when estimating the restricted population mean of either the predictor or criterion. A sample mean observed under selection and attrition does not estimate either the population mean or the restricted population mean. We propose several procedures under normality that yield unbiased estimates of the mean. The procedures focus on correcting the effects of selection and attrition. Each procedure was evaluated with a Monte Carlo simulation to ascertain its strengths and weaknesses. Given appropriate sample size and conditions, we show that these procedures yield unbiased estimators of the restricted and unrestricted population means for both predictor and criterion. We also show how our findings have implications for replicating selected group differences.

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
选择和损耗对估计平均值的偏置效应
组织和验证研究人员经常使用的数据已经受到选择的预测和损耗的标准。这些研究人员经常使用在这些条件下观察到的数据来估计预测器或标准的限制种群均值。我们证明了由于直接或间接选择而产生的有限均值是总体均值加上选择比率的函数。因此,所选平均组之间的任何差异反映了总体差异加上选择比率差异。当标准也存在损耗时,对群体差异的估计就变得更加复杂了。在估计预测器或标准的限制种群均值时,选择和损耗的影响会引起测量偏差。在选择和损耗下观察到的样本均值既不能估计总体均值,也不能估计受限总体均值。我们提出了几种在正态性下产生无偏均值估计的方法。程序的重点是纠正选择和流失的影响。每个程序都用蒙特卡罗模拟进行评估,以确定其优点和缺点。给定适当的样本量和条件,我们表明,这些程序产生无偏估计的限制和不受限制的人口意味着对预测器和标准。我们还展示了我们的发现如何对复制选定的群体差异产生影响。
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
5.00
自引率
3.80%
发文量
34
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology publishes articles relating to areas of psychology which have a greater mathematical or statistical aspect of their argument than is usually acceptable to other journals including: • mathematical psychology • statistics • psychometrics • decision making • psychophysics • classification • relevant areas of mathematics, computing and computer software These include articles that address substantitive psychological issues or that develop and extend techniques useful to psychologists. New models for psychological processes, new approaches to existing data, critiques of existing models and improved algorithms for estimating the parameters of a model are examples of articles which may be favoured.
期刊最新文献
A new Q-matrix validation method based on signal detection theory. Discriminability around polytomous knowledge structures and polytomous functions. Understanding linear interaction analysis with causal graphs. Identifiability analysis of the fixed-effects one-parameter logistic positive exponent model. Regularized Bayesian algorithms for Q-matrix inference based on saturated cognitive diagnosis modelling.
×
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