Literature DB >> 26969507

Confidence intervals construction for difference of two means with incomplete correlated data.

Hui-Qiong Li1, Nian-Sheng Tang2, Jie-Yi Yi3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Incomplete data often arise in various clinical trials such as crossover trials, equivalence trials, and pre and post-test comparative studies. Various methods have been developed to construct confidence interval (CI) of risk difference or risk ratio for incomplete paired binary data. But, there is little works done on incomplete continuous correlated data. To this end, this manuscript aims to develop several approaches to construct CI of the difference of two means for incomplete continuous correlated data.
METHODS: Large sample method, hybrid method, simple Bootstrap-resampling method based on the maximum likelihood estimates (B 1) and Ekbohm's unbiased estimator (B 2), and percentile Bootstrap-resampling method based on the maximum likelihood estimates (B 3) and Ekbohm's unbiased estimator (B 4) are presented to construct CI of the difference of two means for incomplete continuous correlated data. Simulation studies are conducted to evaluate the performance of the proposed CIs in terms of empirical coverage probability, expected interval width, and mesial and distal non-coverage probabilities.
RESULTS: Empirical results show that the Bootstrap-resampling-based CIs B 1, B 2, B 4 behave satisfactorily for small to moderate sample sizes in the sense that their coverage probabilities could be well controlled around the pre-specified nominal confidence level and the ratio of their mesial non-coverage probabilities to the non-coverage probabilities could be well controlled in the interval [0.4, 0.6].
CONCLUSIONS: If one would like a CI with the shortest interval width, the Bootstrap-resampling-based CIs B 1 is the optimal choice.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Bootstrap; Confidence interval; Correlated data; Incomplete data

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26969507      PMCID: PMC4788928          DOI: 10.1186/s12874-016-0125-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol        ISSN: 1471-2288            Impact factor:   4.615


Background

Incomplete data often arise in various research fields such as crossover trials, equivalence trials, and pre and post-test comparative studies. For instance, ([1] pp. 212) designed a crossover clinical trial to measure the onset of action of two doses of formoterol solution aerosol: 12 ug and 24 ug. In this study, twenty-four patients were randomly allocated in equal numbers to one of the six possible sequences of two treatments at a time. Each patient was received two aerosols at each of visits 2 and 4. After four weeks, researchers measured the forced expiratory volume of a second (FEV1) indicators for twenty-four patients. Due to the fact that researches did not consider all possible combinations of three treatments (e.g., placebo, 12 ug and 24 ug aerosols), which indicates that the missing data mechanism is missing completely at random (MCAR) thus FEV1 was only observed for 7 patients under both treatments (e.g., 12 ug and 24 ug aerosols), 9 patients only for 12 ug aerosol, and 8 patients only for 24 ug aerosol. The resultant data are shown in Table 1, which consist of two parts: the complete observations and the incomplete observations.
Table 1

FEV1 indicators of patients for 12 ug and 24 ug formoterol solution aerosol

12 ug(x 1)24 ug(x 2)
2.2502.700
0.9250.900
1.0101.270
2.1002.150
2.5002.450
1.7501.725
1.3701.120
3.400
2.250
1.460
1.480
2.050
3.500
2.650
2.190
0.840
1.750
2.525
1.080
3.120
3.100
2.700
1.870
0.940
FEV1 indicators of patients for 12 ug and 24 ug formoterol solution aerosol For the above crossover clinical trial, our main interest is to test the equivalence between 12 ug and 24 ug formoterol solution aerosols with respect to the FEV1 value. To this end, we can construct a (1−α)100 % confidence interval for the difference of two FEV1 values. If the resultant confidence interval (CI) lies entirely in the interval (−δ0,δ0) with δ0(>0) being some pre-specified clinical acceptable threshold, we thus could conclude the equivalence between two doses of formoterol solution aerosol at the α significance level. As a result, reliable CIs for the difference in the presence of incomplete data are necessary. The problem of testing the equality and constructing CI for the difference of two correlated proportions in the presence of incomplete paired binary data has received considerable attention in past years. For example, ones can refer to [2-6] for the large sample method, and [7] for the corrected profile likelihood method. When sample size is small, [8] proposed the exact unconditional test procedure for testing equality of two correlated proportions with incomplete correlated data. Tang, Ling and Tian [9] developed the exact unconditional and approximate unconditional CIs for proportion difference in the presence of incomplete paired binary data. Lin et al. [10] presented a Bayesian method to test equality of two correlated proportions with incomplete correlated data. Li et al. [11] discussed the confidence interval construction for rate ratio in matched-pair studies with incomplete data. However, all the aforementioned methods were developed for incomplete paired binary data. Statistical inference on the difference of two means with incomplete correlated data has received a limited attention. For example, [12] discussed the problem of testing the equality of two means with missing data on one response and recommended [13] statistic when the variances were not too different. Lin and Stivers [14] also gave a similar comparison. Lin and Stivers [15] and [12] suggested some test statistics for testing the equality of two means with incomplete data on both response. However, to our knowledge, little work has been done on CI construction for the difference of two means with incomplete correlated data under the MCAR assumption. Inspired by [16-19], we develop several CIs for the difference of two means with incomplete correlated data under the MCAR assumption based on the large sample method, hybrid method and Bootstrap-resampling method. The presented Bootstrap-resampling CIs have not been considered in the literature related to missing observations. The rest of this article is organized as follows. Several methods are presented to construct CIs for the difference of the two means with incomplete correlated data in Section “Methods”. Simulation studies and an example are conducted to evaluate the finite performance of the proposed CIs in terms of coverage probability, expected interval width, and mesial and distal non-coverage probabilities in Section “Results”. A brief discussion is given in Section “Discussion”. Some concluding remarks are given in Section “Conclusion”.

Methods

Suppose that =(x1,x2)′ is a 2×1 vector of random variables, and follows a distribution with mean and covariance matrix given by respectively. Let {(x1,x2):m=1,⋯,n} be n paired observations on x1 and x2, be n1 additional observations on x1, be n2 additional observations on x2. Thus, there are n1 missing observations on x2, and n2 missing observations on x1. Without loss of generality, the data may be presented as follows: where (x1,x2) is referred to as a paired observation, while x1, and x2, are referred to as incomplete or unpaired observations. Similar to [20, 21], throughout this article, it is assumed that the missing data mechanism is MCAR (i.e., independent of treatment and outcome). Based on these observations, we here want to construct reliable explicit CIs for the difference of two means δ=μ1−μ2 under MCAR assumption.

Confidence interval based on the large sample method

To make a comparison with the following proposed methods, we assume that follows a bivariate normal distribution in this subsection. In this case, if only variable x1 or x2 is subject to missingness (i.e., n1=0 or n2=0), one can obtain the closed forms of the maximum likelihood estimates (MLEs) of and [22]. However, there are no closed forms of the MLEs for and when variables x1 and x2 are simultaneously subject to missingness (i.e., n1≠0 and n2≠0), though one can find the MLEs of and using an iterative algorithm [23]. To get the closed forms of MLEs for and , [15] proposed the modified MLEs using a non-iterative procedure and provided several test statistics based on the obtained estimators of and . (i) Confidence interval based on Lin and Stivers’s test statistics Let be the MLE of δ under the bivariate normal assumption of . When is known, it follows from [15] that the MLE of δ is and the asymptotic variance of can be expressed as respectively, where , , , , a=nh(n+n2+n1β21), b=nh(n+n1+n2β12), β21=ρσ2/σ1, β12=ρσ1/σ2, h=1/{(n+n1)(n+n2)−n1n2ρ2}. An approximate 100(1−α) % CI of δ is given by , which is denoted as T-CI. Following [15], when is unknown, the statistic for testing H0:δ=δ0 versus H1:δ≠δ0 is given by which is asymptotically distributed as t-distribution with n degrees of freedom under H0, where V1=[{A2/n+(1−A)2/n1 }m1+{ B2/n+(1−B)2/n2 } m2−2ABm12/n]/(n−1), A={n(n+n2+n1m12/m1}/{ (n+n1)(n+n2)−n1n2r2}−1, B={n(n+n1+n2m12/ m2} /{ (n + n1)(n + n2)−n1n2r2}−1, , , , . Therefore, the approximate 100(1−α) % CI on the basis of T1 is given by (L, U), where , and , which is denoted as T1-CI. Another test statistic defined by [15] for testing H0:δ=δ0 versus H1:δ≠δ0, which is a generalization of [24] test statistic for two independent samples, is given by which is asymptotically distributed as t distribution with degrees ν of freedom, where , , h1=n{(n+n2)m1/(n+n1)+(n+n1)m2/(n+n2)−2m12}/{(n−1)(n+n1)(n+n2)}, h2=n1b1/{(n1−1)(n+n1)2}, h3=n2b2/{(n2−1)(n+n2)2}, , , and . Therefore, the approximate 100(1−α) % CI of δ for statistic T2 is denoted as T2-CI. When σ1=σ2, it follows from [15] that the statistic for testing H0:δ=δ0 versus H1:δ≠δ0 can be expressed as which is asymptotically distribution as t-distribution with degrees n+n1+n2−4 of freedom. Note that when n2>n1, b1+c2 should be replaced by b2+c1. Thus, the approximate 100(1−α) % CI of δ for T3 is denoted as T3-CI, where , and . Also, [12] presented the similar but simpler test statistics for testing the mean difference δ=μ1−μ2, which are adopted to construct CIs of δ as follows. (ii) Confidence interval based on Ekbohm’s test statistics Following [12], an unbiased estimator of δ is given by , and its variance is given by . An approximate 100(1 − α) % CI of δ can be obtained by which is denoted as T-CI. When σ1=σ2, Ekbothm (1976) proposed the following statistic for testing H0: , where , , and λ=2m12/(m1+m2). Under H0, T4 is asymptotically distributed as t-distribution with degrees n of freedom. Therefore, the approximate 100(1−α) % CI is denoted as T4-CI. Following [12], when σ1=σ2, another statistic for testing H0 can be expressed as , which is asymptotically distributed as t distribution with degrees ν of freedom under H0, where R1 = n(m1 + m2 − 2m12) /(n − 1), R2 =(n1 + n2)(b1+b2)/(n1+n2−2), and . Thus, an approximate 100(1−α) % CI of δ for T5 is denoted as T5-CI.

Confidence interval based on the generalized estimating equations(GEEs)

To relax the bivariate normality assumption of , the method of the generalized estimating equations (GEEs) with exchangeable working correlation structure (e.g., [25]) can be adopted to make statistical inference on δ in the incomplete correlated data because the GEE approach have become one of the most widely used methods in dealing with correlated response data [26, 27]. Following [28], the GEEs with exchangeable working correlation structure can be used to estimate parameter vector ; the so-called sandwich variance estimator can be used to consistently estimate the covariance matrix of ; and the ML method under a bivariate normal assumption via available paired observations is used to estimate the correlation parameter. Thus, an approximate 100(1−α) % CI of δ based on GEE method is denoted as T-CI.

Confidence interval based on the hybrid method

When the distribution function of is unknown, a hybrid method is developed to construct CI of δ in this subsection. We first introduce the general concept of hybrid method. Let θ1 and θ2 be two parameters of interest. Now our main interest is to construct a 100(1−α) % two-sided CI (L,U) of θ1−θ2 via hybrid method. Let and be two estimates of θ1 and θ2, respectively; and let (l1,u1) and (l2,u2) denote two approximate 100(1−α) % CIs for θ1 and θ2, respectively. Under the dependent assumption on and , it follows from the central limit theorem that the approximate two-sided 100(1−α) % CI of θ1−θ2 is given by (L,U), where Because , the lower limit L and the upper limit U can be rewritten as respectively. Note that (l1,u1) contains the plausible parameter values of θ1, and (l2,u2) contains the plausible parameter values for θ2. Among these plausible values for θ1 and θ2, the values closest to the minimum L and maximum U are respectively l1−u2 and u1−l2 in spirit of the score-type CI [29]. From the central limit theorem, the variance estimates can now be recovered from θ1=l1 as and from θ2=u2 as for setting L. As a result, the lower limit L for θ1−θ2 is Similarly, we can obtain To obtain the above presented approximate 100(1−α) % hybrid CI for μ1−μ2, one requires evaluating the (1−α) 100 % CIs of θ1 = μ1 (denoted as (l1, u1)) and θ2=μ2 (denoted as (l2, u2)), and estimating the correlation coefficient . For the former, following [19], we consider the following two methods for getting the confidence limits (l1, u1) and (l2, u2) of θ1 and θ2. (i) The Wilson score method where N=n+n and for i=1,2. (ii)The Agresti-coull method where N=n+n and for i=1,2. To construct CI for δ=μ1−μ2 via the above described hybrid method, we can simply set θ1=μ1 and θ2=μ2. If Σ is known, the estimated correlation coefficient of and is given by . If Σ is unknown, is given by , where , and Thus, using Eqs. (1) and (2) yields CIs of δ=μ1−μ2. When l and u are estimated by the Wilson score method, we denote the corresponding CI as W-CI; when l and u are estimated by the Agresti-coull method, the corresponding CI is denoted as W-CI.

Bootstrap-resampling-based confidence intervals

When the distribution of is known, one can obtain the approximate CIs of δ based on the asymptotic distributions of the constructed test statistics under the null hypotheses H0:δ=δ0. However, when the distribution of is unknown, the asymptotic distributions of the constructed test statistics may not be reliable, especially with small sample size. On the other hand, estimators of some nuisance parameters have not the closed-form solutions even if the approximate distribution is reliable, and they must be obtained by using some iterative algorithms, which are computationally intensive. In this case, the Bootstrap method is often adopted to construct CIs of parameter of interest. The Bootstrap CIs can be constructed via the following steps. Step 1. Given the paired observations and incomplete observations we draw n paired observations with replacement from n paired observations {(x11,x21),⋯,(x1,x2)}, generate n1 observations with replacement from , and sample n2 observations with replacement from . Thus, we obtain the following Bootstrap resampling sample Step 2. For the above generated Bootstrap resampling sample , we first compute and , and then calculate the estimated value of δ via . Step 3. Repeating the above steps 1 and 2 for a total of G times yields G Bootstrap estimates of δ. Let be the ordered values of . Step 4. Based on the bootstrap estimates , Bootstrap-resampling-based CIs for δ can be constructed as follows. Generally, the standard error se of can be estimated by the sample standard deviation of the G replications, i.e., , where . If is approximately normally distributed, an approximate 100(1−α) % Bootstrap CI for δ is given by , where z is the upper α/2-percentile of the standard normal distribution, which is referred as the simple Bootstrap confidence interval. When , the corresponding simple Bootstrap CI is denoted as B1. When , the corresponding simple Bootstrap CI is denoted as B2. Alternatively, if is not normally distributed, it follows from ([16] p.132) that the approximate 100(1−α) % Bootstrap-resampling-based percentile CI for δ is , where [ a] represents the integer part of a, which is referred as the percentile Bootstrap CI. When , the corresponding percentile Bootstrap CI is denoted as B3. When , the corresponding percentile Bootstrap CI is denoted as B4.

Results

Simulation studies

In this subsection, we investigate the finite performance of various CIs in terms of empirical coverage probability (ECP), empirical confidence widths (ECW), and distal and mesial non-coverage probabilities (DNP and MNP) in various parameter settings via Monte Carlo simulation studies. A summary of abbreviation for various confidence intervals is presented in Table 2.
Table 2

Summary of various abbreviations

AbbreviationDefinition
T 1 CI based on T 1 statistic
T 2 CI based on T 2 statistic
T 3 CI based on T 3 statistic
T 4 CI based on T 4 statistic
T 5 CI based on T 5 statistic
T g CI based on GEE method
W s CI based on Wilson score method
W a CI based on Agresti-coull method
B 1 Simple Bootstrap CI based on
\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$\hat \delta =a\overline {x}_{1}^{(n)}+\left (1-a\right)\overline {x}_{1}^{(n_{1})}-b\overline {x}_{2}^{(n)}-(1-b)\overline {x}_{2}^{(n_{2})}$\end{document}δ^=ax¯1(n)+1ax¯1(n1)bx¯2(n)(1b)x¯2(n2)
B 2 Simple Bootstrap CI based on \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$\hat {\delta }=\bar {x}_{1}^{(n+n_{1})}-\bar {x}_{2}^{(n+n_{2})}$\end{document}δ^=x¯1(n+n1)x¯2(n+n2)
B 3 Percentile Bootstrap CI based on
\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$\hat \delta =a\overline {x}_{1}^{(n)}+(1-a)\overline {x}_{1}^{(n_{1})}-b\overline {x}_{2}^{(n)}-(1-b)\overline {x}_{2}^{(n_{2})}$\end{document}δ^=ax¯1(n)+(1a)x¯1(n1)bx¯2(n)(1b)x¯2(n2)
B 4 Percentile Bootstrap CI based on \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$\hat {\delta }=\bar {x}_{1}^{(n+n_{1})}-\bar {x}_{2}^{(n+n_{2})}$\end{document}δ^=x¯1(n+n1)x¯2(n+n2)
ECPsEmpirical coverage probabilities, is defined by Eq. (3)
ECWEmpirical confidence widths, is defined by Eq. (3)
RNCPThe ratio of the mesial non-coverage probabilities to the
non-coverage probabilities, is defined by Eqs. (4) and (5)
Summary of various abbreviations In the first simulation study, we consider the following case that (n,n1,n2) is set to be (5,2,2); μ1=0,1,2; μ2=0.25,1,1.5; ρ=−0.9,−0.5,−0.1,0,0.1,0.5,0.9; δ=μ1−μ2=−0.25,0,0.5; ; and α=0.05. For a given combination (n,n1,n2,μ1,μ2,ρ,σ1,σ2), we generate n+n1+n2 random samples of (x1,x2)′ from a bivariate normal distribution with =(μ1,μ2)′ and Then, for the generated n+n1+n2 random samples, the n1 observations on x2 are deleted randomly. For the remaining paired n+n2 random samples, the n2 observations on x1 are deleted randomly. Thus, (x1,x2)′(m=1,⋯,n) are n pairs observations on (x1,x2)′; x1,(j=1,⋯,n1) are n1 additional observations on x1; x2,(k=1,⋯,n2) are n2 additional observations on x2. Based on the observation {(x1,x2):m=1,⋯,n}, {x1,:j=1,⋯,n1}, {x2,:k=1,⋯,n2}, we can draw 5000 bootstrap resampling samples. Independently repeating the above process M=10000 times, we can compute their corresponding ECP, ECW, MNP and DNP values. The ECP, ECW, MNP and DNP are defined by respectively, where is an indicator function, which is 1 if and 0 otherwise. The ratio of the MNP to the non-coverage probability (NCP) is defined as Results are presented in Tables 3, 4 and 5. Also, to investigate the performance of the proposed CIs under the assumption , we calculate the corresponding results for T3, T4, T5, hybrid CIs, Bootstrap-resampling-based CIs when σ2=4 and (n,n1,n2)=(5,5,2), which are given in Tables 9, 10 and 11.
Table 3

ECPs of various confidence intervals under bivariate normal distribution with different ρ and δ, μ 1, and (n,n 1,n 2)=(5,2,2) and

ρ \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}${\sigma _{1}^{2}}$\end{document}σ12 δ μ 1 μ 2 T 1 T 2 T g W s W a B 1 B 2 B 3 B 4
-0.91-0.2500.250.93900.95900.93700.93500.88000.95200.95600.93700.9570
0110.94400.95800.94700.92200.87600.94700.94900.93000.9490
0.521.50.94300.96700.95300.94000.88600.94700.94800.93100.9480
8-0.2500.250.94100.96300.94500.91800.86000.94300.94900.93400.9490
0110.93700.95800.93500.92400.86400.95100.95000.93900.9500
0.521.50.93800.95700.94100.92400.87500.95700.95600.94700.9560
-0.51-0.2500.250.94400.96100.95300.92000.85700.94900.94300.93300.9420
0110.94200.96600.92300.92700.86600.95700.95600.94600.9550
0.521.50.94600.96600.93800.92500.86400.94800.95600.94300.9540
8-0.2500.250.92900.95900.94800.92300.87300.94700.94500.93900.9440
0110.92900.95600.94200.92100.87900.94600.94300.93800.9440
0.521.50.93500.96900.94100.93300.88800.95200.95400.94700.9520
-0.11-0.2500.250.93000.95700.95000.91700.86300.95500.95000.94500.9470
0110.93800.95900.94500.91700.86000.95400.95000.94500.9520
0.521.50.94000.96200.94400.91400.85600.95100.94600.94200.9460
8-0.2500.250.94600.96000.93100.90500.84900.94600.94700.94400.9470
0110.94500.96700.94400.91500.85900.95600.95000.94800.9510
0.521.50.93500.96100.93600.91500.85700.95000.95200.94400.9490
01-0.2500.250.93800.96100.94000.93300.88600.95500.95500.95300.9530
0110.92900.96100.92800.92000.86800.94700.94800.94700.9470
0.521.50.93000.95800.94200.92300.88000.95200.95100.95000.9510
8-0.2500.250.92100.95900.93900.90900.84000.94300.94500.94500.9450
0110.92400.95700.94000.90500.85200.94300.94400.94300.9430
0.521.50.93600.96800.93800.91400.85400.95300.95300.95300.9520
0.11-0.2500.250.93100.96900.94800.91500.85300.95100.95100.94900.9490
0110.93300.96700.94400.91500.85500.95000.95000.94900.9510
0.521.50.93100.95700.94900.91500.86300.95200.95200.95100.9520
8-0.2500.250.92200.95200.94200.91900.87000.95100.95100.95200.9520
0110.92900.95400.93600.92100.86900.94900.94900.94700.9470
0.521.50.91800.95300.93500.93400.88600.95200.95200.95000.9500
0.51-0.2500.250.92300.95300.94700.89800.84700.95400.95400.95300.9530
0110.93300.96200.93900.90500.85100.94400.94400.94400.9440
0.521.50.92800.96400.93300.91400.86400.95200.95200.95000.9500
8-0.2500.250.93600.96600.94200.90300.84500.94700.94700.94600.9460
0110.92200.96000.93500.90600.84100.95000.95000.94800.9480
0.521.50.93000.96500.95000.91400.85700.95800.95800.95700.9570
0.91-0.2500.250.91900.95400.94000.93000.87100.94500.94500.94400.9430
0110.93900.96400.94600.93600.88700.95900.95800.95700.9580
0.521.50.92400.96100.93100.92200.87600.94700.94600.94700.9470
8-0.2500.250.92000.95900.94400.90500.84400.94400.94300.94300.9450
0110.93100.96200.94300.90400.83900.94500.94500.94600.9460
0.521.50.93100.96200.94000.91900.86100.95300.95200.95200.9530
Table 4

ECW of various confidence intervals under bivariate normal distribution with different ρ and δ, μ 1, μ 2, and (n,n 1,n 2)=(5,2,2) and

ρ \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}${\sigma _{1}^{2}}$\end{document}σ12 δ μ 1 μ 2 T 1 T 2 T g W s W a B 1 B 2 B 3 B 4
-0.91-0.2500.258.05109.84807.60404.97904.08306.54006.97006.53806.9700
0118.09809.84407.62904.98804.09306.54106.97106.54106.9710
0.521.58.16909.72107.64105.08804.20706.54206.97006.54106.9680
8-0.2500.2510.817012.07509.60206.50905.28408.80209.19508.80109.1960
01110.835012.10909.58306.50805.28408.80309.19508.80509.1940
0.521.510.831012.06709.57206.56105.35608.80809.20008.80709.1960
-0.51-0.2500.2512.739014.004011.03007.60806.162010.298010.737010.299010.7370
01112.751014.080011.05007.63106.181010.302010.741010.300010.7380
0.521.512.746014.015011.01207.65406.222010.307010.747010.308010.7450
8-0.2500.257.95209.44207.30304.75203.89106.46006.59906.46206.6000
0117.99909.48807.33004.77603.91406.46306.60006.46306.6030
0.521.57.94109.41907.33004.88304.04606.46506.60406.46306.6010
-0.11-0.2500.2510.123011.12108.92906.00604.88708.24808.39108.25108.3940
01110.115011.26009.90606.00404.88508.24908.39208.24908.3930
0.521.510.055011.16509.88306.07504.98608.24608.38808.24808.3890
8-0.2500.2511.899012.926010.26007.03305.70809.60209.76609.60309.7670
01111.917012.954010.29107.05005.72409.60309.76709.60209.7670
0.521.511.929013.005010.24907.11305.80709.59909.76209.59809.7610
01-0.2500.257.43808.79706.92704.45703.64606.20206.20806.19806.2060
0117.40709.02906.91404.45703.64806.21006.21606.21006.2160
0.521.57.47509.00406.96204.63803.85806.20206.20806.20006.2060
8-0.2500.259.070010.25208.21405.46804.46107.49007.49707.49107.4960
0119.048010.00508.13105.41904.42907.49107.49807.48807.4960
0.521.59.137010.21008.21105.59304.61707.49207.50007.49107.4970
0.11-0.2500.2510.543011.89109.37506.36505.18808.66808.67608.67008.6770
01110.533011.79009.36106.34105.17108.66808.67608.66608.6740
0.521.510.601011.71809.37106.48605.33108.67008.67808.66808.6770
8-0.2500.257.31908.87906.84304.39203.59106.10806.10806.10706.1070
0117.27508.76206.82704.38403.59006.10906.10906.10906.1090
0.521.57.34808.79706.86404.58003.81606.10706.10706.10406.1040
0.51-0.2500.258.70709.83807.94605.26504.30507.25907.25907.25707.2570
0118.75109.92507.99405.31004.34507.25707.25707.25407.2540
0.521.58.832010.08908.04905.49704.54807.25907.25907.25907.2590
8-0.2500.2510.236011.45309.11006.17505.03908.38208.38208.38108.3810
01110.138011.26109.06106.15405.02608.38108.38108.38508.3850
0.521.510.102011.31609.08006.23005.13208.38308.38308.38308.3830
0.91-0.2500.257.23008.91106.81404.37403.57506.00006.00706.00206.0090
0117.30308.68106.79404.36203.57005.99606.00205.99506.0020
0.521.57.23408.83106.79304.52703.77205.99906.00605.99906.0050
8-0.2500.258.48309.73407.80505.19004.25107.00307.01106.99807.0050
0118.44109.67007.76305.14004.21007.00107.00806.99707.0050
0.521.58.41609.82507.82905.32404.41507.00007.00807.00207.0100
Table 5

RNCP of various confidence intervals under bivariate normal distribution with different ρ and δ, μ 1, μ 2, and (n,n 1,n 2)=(5,2,2) and

ρ \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}${\sigma _{1}^{2}}$\end{document}σ12 δ μ 1 μ 2 T 1 T 2 T g W s W a B 1 B 2 B 3 B 4
-0.91-0.2500.250.47540.48050.47310.47690.46600.50000.40910.49210.4186
0110.42860.52860.45630.38460.48920.45280.43140.42860.4706
0.521.50.47370.59090.48390.46670.45900.49060.42310.46380.4038
8-0.2500.250.42370.51080.50480.42680.45740.50880.56860.53030.5686
0110.46030.51430.48570.44740.50000.51020.50000.50820.5000
0.521.50.46770.57440.45450.53950.49830.41860.45450.47170.4773
-0.51-0.2500.250.55360.54360.52340.53750.52890.56860.57890.58210.5862
0110.50000.52350.49480.47950.53890.46510.47730.48150.4667
0.521.50.57410.51760.52940.65330.52660.55770.65910.61400.6304
8-0.2500.250.50700.58290.50980.51950.54810.54720.52730.54100.5357
0110.53520.53640.53060.46840.55850.53700.52630.56450.5536
0.521.50.47690.53550.47190.37310.52560.52080.43480.47170.4375
-0.11-0.2500.250.50000.57440.53000.46990.60860.53330.50000.47270.4717
0110.48390.55850.48420.44580.57140.50000.54000.50910.5417
0.521.50.53330.56320.50000.51160.50000.51020.51850.50000.5000
8-0.2500.250.46300.57500.48480.45260.51760.44440.41510.44640.4528
0110.50910.58790.51040.50590.51190.54550.48000.50000.4898
0.521.50.53850.51790.52880.55290.52480.52000.52080.51790.4902
01-0.2500.250.54840.56410.56670.61190.48000.48890.53330.53190.5319
0110.47890.59230.50000.40000.49960.49060.48080.49060.4906
0.521.50.42860.57140.50000.28570.50970.50000.51020.52000.5306
8-0.2500.250.46840.58290.51490.48350.53970.49120.50910.50910.5091
0110.57890.59770.47000.47370.50280.45610.44640.49120.4561
0.521.50.53130.55000.50000.52330.51000.48940.51060.51060.5000
0.11-0.2500.250.52170.50650.54880.51760.55660.51020.51020.49020.4902
0110.52240.57880.46510.51760.52120.42000.42000.43140.4286
0.521.50.53620.51160.58240.62350.58520.54170.54170.57140.5417
8-0.2500.250.43590.54170.44900.53090.58330.44900.44900.45830.4583
0110.47890.53040.49040.35440.49140.41180.41180.45280.4528
0.521.50.48780.51700.50530.28790.53140.41670.41670.42000.4200
0.51-0.2500.250.49350.51060.45630.45100.51250.50000.50000.51060.5106
0110.55220.59470.45050.42110.50850.39290.39290.41070.4107
0.521.50.48610.59440.49430.50000.46920.54170.54170.50000.5000
8-0.2500.250.46880.56470.45920.42270.50810.54720.54720.51850.5185
0110.52560.57500.54740.54260.50080.52000.52000.55770.5577
0.521.50.52860.50000.48750.52330.50930.52380.52380.53490.5349
0.91-0.2500.250.50620.56520.50000.57140.48610.52730.52730.53570.5263
0110.52460.51110.52380.32810.51000.51220.50000.48840.5000
0.521.50.46050.56920.41410.21790.22170.45280.44440.43400.4340
8-0.2500.250.52500.53410.51040.50530.50450.51790.50880.54390.5455
0110.53620.55790.51550.46880.61330.52730.52730.53700.5370
0.521.50.52170.55790.47780.49380.46720.46810.45830.50000.4681
Table 9

ECPs of various confidence intervals with different ρ and δ, μ 1, μ 2, (n,n 1,n 2)=(5,5,2), when

Bivariate normal distribution
ρ δ μ 1 μ 2 T 3 T 4 T 5 W s W a B 1 B 2 B 3 B 4
-0.9-0.2500.250.9350.9600.9060.9200.8800.9520.9540.9470.954
0110.9440.9560.8940.9200.8690.9460.9470.9330.947
0.521.50.9440.9670.9020.9310.8830.9510.9530.9420.951
-0.5-0.2500.250.9410.9610.9030.9100.8610.9420.9430.9390.943
0110.9370.9580.9000.9150.8620.9500.9520.9490.951
0.521.50.9410.9620.8980.9250.8820.9520.9570.9520.957
-0.1-0.2500.250.9330.9580.9000.9030.8380.9440.9450.9450.946
0110.9390.9660.9070.9120.8530.9520.9510.9540.953
0.521.50.9430.9750.9240.9430.8920.9610.9590.9600.959
0-0.2500.250.9360.9640.9140.9130.8600.9490.9490.9500.950
0110.9250.9590.9060.9080.8610.9410.9410.9400.940
0.521.50.9320.9680.9130.9240.8870.9520.9520.9510.951
0.1-0.2500.250.9220.9600.9180.9110.8580.9480.9480.9480.947
0110.9230.9630.9090.9060.8590.9440.9460.9440.944
0.521.50.9280.9690.9130.9350.8890.9460.9470.9470.946
0.5-0.2500.250.9270.9680.9230.9040.8430.9500.9470.9340.947
0110.9280.9640.9230.9130.8570.9420.9440.9350.947
0.521.50.9240.9780.9330.9470.9010.9600.9580.9430.960
0.9-0.2500.250.9130.9470.9740.9290.8800.9510.9510.7770.951
0110.9080.9520.9760.9300.8830.9470.9550.7810.951
0.521.50.9130.9420.9740.9740.9440.9460.9530.7780.954
Bivariate t-distribution
-0.9-0.2500.250.9220.9720.9080.9290.8700.9520.9530.9460.956
0110.9150.9730.9140.9350.8680.9480.9430.9370.948
0.521.50.9300.9780.9140.9370.8730.9480.9500.9410.951
-0.5-0.2500.250.9290.9760.9210.9390.8690.9420.9410.9400.945
0110.9310.9750.9250.9350.8720.9430.9420.9430.946
0.521.50.9220.9710.9100.9240.8680.9530.9510.9500.955
-0.1-0.2500.250.9320.9730.9220.9250.8560.9510.9510.9550.954
0110.9260.9710.9240.9230.8590.9410.9420.9460.947
0.521.50.9240.9720.9180.9210.8590.9500.9480.9540.955
0-0.2500.250.9190.9730.9210.9180.8520.9440.9440.9490.949
0110.9250.9720.9230.9250.8640.9400.9400.9470.947
0.521.50.9390.9770.9240.9260.8570.9500.9500.9540.954
0.1-0.2500.250.9300.9710.9290.9280.8570.9540.9540.9560.956
0110.9290.9820.9270.9280.8570.9490.9490.9500.951
0.521.50.9340.9790.9240.9300.8590.9520.9530.9570.957
0.5-0.2500.250.9290.9730.9470.9400.8640.9440.9500.9420.951
0110.9200.9760.9370.9280.8610.9430.9440.9360.946
0.521.50.9390.9700.9420.9300.8680.9450.9470.9420.951
0.9-0.2500.250.9230.9690.9780.9430.8800.9390.9380.7970.939
0110.9200.9660.9770.9520.8870.9390.9420.7950.949
0.521.50.9310.9650.9790.9440.8780.9530.9440.8040.947
Table 10

ECW of various confidence interals with different ρ and δ, μ 1, μ 2, (n,n 1,n 2)=(5,5,2), when

Bivariate normal distribution
ρ δ μ 1 μ 2 T 3 T 4 T 5 W s W a B 1 B 2 B 3 B 4
-0.9-0.2500.256.3507.0325.0193.8213.1485.1505.3705.1495.368
0116.3897.0385.0473.8333.1625.1515.3705.1515.370
0.521.56.4477.0525.0603.9473.2905.1525.3705.1525.370
-0.5-0.2500.255.8836.4734.6103.5032.8944.8004.8814.7994.880
0115.8856.4364.6063.5102.9034.8004.8814.7994.879
0.521.55.8776.4134.6063.6553.0784.8024.8834.8024.882
-0.1-0.2500.255.2825.8914.1873.1982.6514.3334.3374.3334.338
0115.3185.8984.1863.2132.6704.3354.3404.3344.338
0.521.55.2705.8884.1833.3972.8934.3364.3404.3364.339
0-0.2500.255.1145.7334.0463.0962.5714.1904.1904.1894.189
0115.1475.7294.0763.1392.6144.1904.1904.1904.190
0.521.55.1235.7634.0693.3372.8494.1914.1914.1894.189
0.1-0.2500.254.8695.5193.9213.0042.5004.0334.0374.0324.037
0114.8705.5503.8993.0042.5044.0324.0374.0334.038
0.521.54.8495.6363.9263.2542.7954.0314.0364.0334.037
0.5-0.2500.253.8055.0503.4122.6082.1883.2023.3603.2023.360
0113.8115.0193.3982.6242.2133.2013.3603.1993.357
0.521.53.8575.2113.4012.9552.5833.2003.3593.2003.360
0.9-0.2500.251.7765.6062.7022.1331.8321.5372.5051.5372.505
0111.7665.5612.6762.1471.8531.5392.5031.5382.503
0.521.51.7845.5482.6892.5542.3031.5372.5051.5362.504
Bivariate t-distribution
-0.9-0.2500.2535.03942.14828.14021.36017.20730.47931.77931.06232.486
01135.22642.66028.52321.56917.37430.47031.76331.04832.470
0.521.534.85442.02028.03221.26017.13530.47231.77131.03832.484
-0.5-0.2500.2532.15638.99325.80919.53415.76528.40228.88128.93629.495
01133.17739.10326.33819.95316.10628.41728.90128.96129.518
0.521.531.99938.87625.55819.40315.67728.39328.87028.94129.480
-0.1-0.2500.2528.75336.66823.54217.84914.45625.62125.64326.12626.164
01128.67236.64923.65217.80914.43525.63725.66126.14626.184
0.521.529.08735.90023.65117.89414.52325.62225.64526.14026.175
0-0.2500.2527.12335.38222.63317.11313.89224.78624.78625.28425.284
01127.85235.37123.03317.42414.14624.79724.79725.29225.292
0.521.527.60734.43422.58117.11613.91924.78624.78625.28825.288
0.1-0.2500.2526.29934.96922.03716.67913.56523.84223.86924.32224.332
01126.79735.38422.41116.96013.78723.85423.88224.34924.365
0.521.526.42034.91122.16416.79813.67923.86423.89124.35724.372
0.5-0.2500.2520.19232.42819.13714.44311.86018.93819.87719.36920.262
01120.21732.47819.11814.52611.94218.95019.89119.38520.271
0.521.520.31430.97518.78314.32511.78318.92819.86919.36120.257
0.9-0.2500.259.42636.10015.34511.6279.7449.09414.8189.35515.174
0119.49134.84315.05511.6229.7509.09014.8049.35215.167
0.521.59.56935.23415.21011.7359.8759.09814.8139.35315.176
Table 11

RNCP of various confidence intervals with different ρ and δ, μ 1, μ 2, (n,n 1,n 2)=(5,5,2), when

Bivariate normal distribution
ρ δ μ 1 μ 2 T 3 T 4 T 5 W s W a B 1 B 2 B 3 B 4
-0.9-0.2500.250.46970.56520.47870.40000.51870.45830.52170.51850.5217
0110.44640.59680.41900.43040.41510.48150.43400.44780.4340
0.521.50.43860.61700.47960.63240.47960.48980.47920.50000.4800
-0.5-0.2500.250.49150.55770.52580.43960.52580.50000.50880.52460.5088
0110.44440.55770.48000.48240.48000.47060.42860.44230.4490
0.521.50.49150.58140.49500.60810.49020.42860.45450.48980.4773
-0.1-0.2500.250.47760.60420.48000.43300.48000.49120.47270.46300.4630
0110.49180.57140.48390.47730.48390.45830.44900.47830.4681
0.521.50.58620.65630.52000.67240.51320.47500.48780.48780.4878
0-0.2500.250.50770.56410.52330.45980.52330.53850.53850.56000.5600
0110.53330.57690.50000.48910.50000.50850.50850.50000.5000
0.521.50.50000.59570.51160.60530.50570.41670.41670.42860.4286
0.1-0.2500.250.52560.56520.50000.42050.50000.50000.51920.50000.5094
0110.45450.56250.47780.46810.47250.51790.52730.51790.5000
0.521.50.56940.64860.50570.62120.50570.57410.56600.55560.5556
0.5-0.2500.250.51390.66040.48050.41670.48050.45100.46300.46150.4815
0110.49300.66670.55130.50570.55840.47460.50880.50770.5283
0.521.50.50670.70270.54550.66040.53730.48780.52380.54390.5250
0.9-0.2500.250.50570.82860.55560.40280.57690.50000.46940.47980.4800
0110.46240.83330.50000.50000.50000.51850.45650.52270.5000
0.521.50.49430.77330.40740.65380.42310.46300.53190.47750.5435
Bivariate t-distribution
-0.9-0.2500.250.51950.69770.48910.50000.49300.47500.43750.44440.4318
0110.47060.69050.53490.51520.52310.47170.56900.54690.5769
0.521.50.53620.74360.50000.54690.55560.51920.48000.50850.4898
-0.5-0.2500.250.59150.68180.46840.44260.44260.49150.50850.50000.5000
0110.49280.71430.48000.45310.44620.49120.45760.47370.4815
0.521.50.52560.70210.50560.55260.55260.41670.38780.35290.3696
-0.1-0.2500.250.39710.55260.49370.46670.46670.51020.50000.53330.5217
0110.52700.72500.53950.53250.53250.46670.46550.46300.4717
0.521.50.46050.57500.44440.48100.48100.50000.47170.51060.5000
0-0.2500.250.53090.63410.50000.48190.48780.50880.50880.49020.4902
0110.50670.63890.48050.48650.48000.56670.56670.56600.5660
0.521.50.55740.70970.51320.50680.50000.52000.52000.54350.5435
0.1-0.2500.250.57140.52940.55560.51390.51390.55320.56520.58140.5814
0110.52110.78130.58330.58330.58330.50980.49020.50000.4898
0.521.50.49250.65630.48000.50000.50000.52080.51060.51160.5116
0.5-0.2500.250.54930.67440.47170.48330.48330.48210.50000.50000.4800
0110.46250.70830.44440.48610.48610.43860.49120.46880.4630
0.521.50.51610.67440.51720.52860.52860.54550.52830.50850.5306
0.9-0.2500.250.54550.88030.43480.50880.50880.46770.46770.49260.4754
0110.55700.85340.56520.60420.60420.50000.50000.51940.4706
0.521.50.43480.83330.57140.48210.48210.50000.53570.48980.5370
ECPs of various confidence intervals under bivariate normal distribution with different ρ and δ, μ 1, and (n,n 1,n 2)=(5,2,2) and ECW of various confidence intervals under bivariate normal distribution with different ρ and δ, μ 1, μ 2, and (n,n 1,n 2)=(5,2,2) and RNCP of various confidence intervals under bivariate normal distribution with different ρ and δ, μ 1, μ 2, and (n,n 1,n 2)=(5,2,2) and Following [17, 30], an interval can be regarded as satisfactory if (i) its ECP is close to the pre-specified 95 % confidence level, (ii) it possesses shorter interval width, and (iii) its RNCP lies in the interval [0.4,0.6]; too mesially located if its RNCP is less than 0.4; and too distally if its RNCP is greater than 0.6. In the second Monte Carlo simulation study, we assume that the random samples of bivariate variables x1 and x2 are generated from a bivariate t-distribution with five degrees of freedom, and mean and scale parameter Σ specified in the first simulation study. The corresponding results with (n,n1,n2)=(5,5,5) are given in Tables 6, 7 and 8. Similarly, we calculate the corresponding results for T3, T4, T5, hybrid CIs, Bootstrap-resampling-based CIs when σ2=4 and (n,n1,n2)=(5,5,2), which are given in Tables 9, 10 and 11.
Table 6

ECPs of various confidence intervals under bivariate t-distribution with different ρ and δ, μ 1, μ 2, and (n,n 1,n 2)=(5,5,5) and

ρ \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}${\sigma _{1}^{2}}$\end{document}σ12 δ μ 1 μ 2 T 1 T 2 T g W s W a B 1 B 2 B 3 B 4
-0.91-0.2500.250.92600.97500.94600.95100.90200.94700.94700.95000.9500
0110.90600.95900.94900.93400.88200.94500.94500.95100.9510
0.521.50.91600.97100.93700.94800.89300.94900.94900.95300.9530
8-0.2500.250.89500.96300.93800.94600.89200.94900.93800.94100.9410
0110.90300.95800.94300.94500.90200.94000.94100.94100.9410
0.521.50.90800.96400.93700.94900.90700.95000.94800.95200.9520
-0.51-0.2500.250.91600.97000.94600.93800.88100.94400.94100.94300.9420
0110.91500.96700.95100.93800.89700.94700.94800.94800.9480
0.521.50.91900.96500.94400.94400.89400.94800.95200.95400.9540
8-0.2500.250.91600.96800.94900.95800.91600.95300.94800.94400.9510
0110.90800.96900.95100.95900.92000.94600.94500.94000.9480
0.521.50.91300.97500.94000.96300.92000.94100.94100.92300.9460
-0.11-0.2500.250.92300.96600.94800.95000.90200.95300.94700.94100.9490
0110.90600.96000.93800.93700.89200.94300.94500.93900.9500
0.521.50.90200.96600.94100.94000.89100.95300.94600.93500.9460
8-0.2500.250.91100.96700.94500.96500.92900.94400.94200.88000.9470
0110.91900.97200.93600.96500.92700.95100.94500.88100.9470
0.521.50.91400.97000.93900.96300.92700.94800.94400.88900.9470
01-0.2500.250.91800.95800.94300.95000.89800.94700.93900.79000.9420
0110.91500.97100.95500.95500.91300.94900.95000.80300.9500
0.521.50.91800.96700.95000.95900.92000.94500.95100.79400.9540
8-0.2500.250.93800.96600.93800.95600.92800.95100.95100.93800.9530
0110.93600.96500.93400.95300.92200.95600.95200.93700.9540
0.521.50.93100.95400.93400.95100.92300.94500.95300.94000.9540
0.11-0.2500.250.93600.96400.94200.95300.92100.94800.95100.94300.9550
0110.93500.96200.93400.95200.91900.95600.95200.94000.9520
0.521.50.92900.96000.93400.94400.91600.94400.94700.93400.9480
8-0.2500.250.93000.95300.93300.94700.91900.94000.93800.93500.9400
0110.93400.95900.93100.95200.91600.94100.94100.93600.9420
0.521.50.93900.96600.93300.95200.92100.95300.95000.94900.9530
0.51-0.2500.250.93700.96400.93700.94900.91200.94500.94400.94300.9470
0110.94500.95900.93600.94500.90800.94600.94200.93800.9440
0.521.50.94300.96800.94000.95200.92000.95400.94800.94900.9540
8-0.2500.250.93400.95800.94600.95200.91900.94200.94500.94700.9480
0110.94000.96300.94700.95300.92100.95500.95600.95800.9580
0.521.50.92700.96100.93300.94700.92300.94200.94200.94700.9460
0.91-0.2500.250.94300.96600.94100.95000.91400.94700.94700.94800.9480
0110.94100.95300.94400.94000.90400.94700.94600.95100.9500
0.521.50.94300.96600.94800.94900.91600.95400.95600.95500.9560
8-0.2500.250.93200.95400.95200.94500.92000.94600.94600.94900.9490
0110.94600.96600.94700.95900.93000.94700.94700.94900.9490
0.521.50.94100.95800.94600.95100.92000.95500.95500.95800.9580
Table 7

ECW of various confidence intervals under bivariate t-distribution with different ρ and δ, μ 1, μ 2, and (n,n 1,n 2)=(5,5,5) and

ρ \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}${\sigma _{1}^{2}}$\end{document}σ12 δ μ 1 μ 2 T 1 T 2 T g W s W a B 1 B 2 B 3 B 4
-0.91-0.2500.2539.986040.845035.008027.687023.602035.941035.941036.411036.4110
01139.589040.321034.671027.526023.467035.928035.928036.408036.4080
0.521.539.229040.616034.860027.657023.583035.905035.905036.393036.3930
8-0.2500.2532.668034.343029.000022.652019.279029.825029.865030.328030.3510
01132.754034.208028.803022.561019.203029.837029.876030.336030.3630
0.521.532.351034.353028.942022.656019.289029.838029.877030.335030.3580
-0.51-0.2500.2538.520039.545034.420027.224023.219035.012035.061035.493035.5290
01137.869039.053033.997026.935022.971035.006035.053035.480035.5150
0.521.538.714039.729034.160027.193023.193035.019035.068035.496035.5300
8-0.2500.2529.379032.870027.881021.771018.536027.155028.379027.628028.8530
01128.924032.354027.535021.508018.310027.167028.400027.655028.8590
0.521.530.106033.632028.508022.335019.022027.188028.414027.657028.8780
-0.11-0.2500.2531.389036.182031.789025.361021.671029.661031.404030.128031.7960
01130.988035.190030.935024.692021.096029.687031.430030.162031.8160
0.521.531.186035.242031.225024.841021.238029.673031.422030.144031.8080
8-0.2500.2523.834031.250026.661020.819017.730020.957026.834021.236027.2880
01123.499031.147026.637020.852017.759020.966026.853021.255027.3120
0.521.523.175030.439026.133020.392017.377020.952026.828021.247027.2670
01-0.2500.2516.796030.784027.329021.959018.828016.625027.259016.985027.6450
01117.165030.551027.319021.876018.755016.625027.260016.975027.6580
0.521.516.998030.650027.243022.041018.912016.616027.261016.970027.6440
8-0.2500.2527.242029.710027.228022.700020.260026.038027.956026.289028.2960
01127.603029.904027.385022.846020.390026.042027.960026.282028.2960
0.521.527.444029.642027.223022.684020.248026.042027.966026.277028.2950
0.11-0.2500.2536.763038.596035.254029.719026.523035.002036.701035.314037.1130
01136.958038.909035.450029.949026.729034.996036.693035.323037.1390
0.521.536.682038.764035.249029.794026.591034.989036.684035.305037.1090
8-0.2500.2526.817028.248025.975021.600019.279025.939026.553026.198026.8650
01127.015028.291026.025021.654019.327025.938026.547026.196026.8510
0.521.527.198028.699026.316021.906019.554025.940026.548026.192026.8500
0.51-0.2500.2535.061035.866032.960027.721024.745033.008033.631033.330034.0030
01135.251035.845032.969027.759024.779032.991033.617033.300033.9910
0.521.534.616035.632032.798027.593024.633032.995033.620033.311033.9920
8-0.2500.2526.083026.908024.821020.585018.374025.054025.081025.329025.3590
01125.684026.700024.645020.440018.245025.039025.065025.316025.3480
0.521.525.980026.940024.840020.590018.381025.041025.068025.328025.3580
0.91-0.2500.2531.798032.288029.942025.117022.430030.221030.253030.523030.5690
01131.871032.090029.806024.994022.320030.198030.229030.505030.5500
0.521.531.399032.056029.745024.970022.301030.214030.244030.518030.5600
8-0.2500.2525.470026.486024.477020.266018.090024.685024.685024.960024.9600
01125.519026.377024.363020.184018.016024.674024.674024.945024.9450
0.521.525.463026.450024.499020.285018.110024.693024.693024.976024.9760
Table 8

RNCP of various confidence intervals under bivariate t-distribution with different ρ and δ, μ 1, μ 2, and (n,n 1,n 2)=(5,5,5) and

ρ \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}${\sigma _{1}^{2}}$\end{document}σ12 δ μ 1 μ 2 T 1 T 2 T g W s W a B 1 B 2 B 3 B 4
-0.91-0.2500.250.43240.52000.50000.59180.51020.47170.47170.48000.4800
0110.45740.46340.50620.48480.50000.47270.47270.51020.5102
0.521.50.45240.58620.52380.53850.50470.41180.41180.42550.4255
8-0.2500.250.47620.48650.48780.48150.48150.47540.46770.47460.4746
0110.53610.52380.46750.50910.50000.48330.47460.47460.4746
0.521.50.47830.52780.47950.50980.54840.54000.50000.52080.5208
-0.51-0.2500.250.45240.40000.45950.48390.45380.44640.42370.42110.4138
0110.60000.60610.57970.56450.55340.52830.53850.55770.5385
0.521.50.50620.54290.54550.53570.56600.50000.50000.54350.5435
8-0.2500.250.47620.50000.50700.59520.51190.51060.53850.51790.5306
0110.52170.58060.50850.58540.55000.48150.52730.51670.5000
0.521.50.49430.40000.40000.45950.51250.53160.52170.51950.5313
-0.11-0.2500.250.55840.47060.53230.58000.47960.53190.56600.59320.5686
0110.55320.55000.52780.57140.54630.47370.47270.47540.5000
0.521.50.44900.47060.43480.43330.46790.42550.48150.47690.4630
8-0.2500.250.48310.45450.52310.40000.46480.57140.50000.49170.5283
0110.50620.50000.48440.45710.50680.48980.47270.49580.4717
0.521.50.46510.50000.45900.56760.54790.44230.44640.45950.4717
01-0.2500.250.52440.57140.61400.58000.51960.50940.52460.48570.5000
0110.50590.44830.44440.44440.48280.54900.56000.52280.5600
0.521.50.53660.39390.48000.41460.48750.45450.53060.50970.5217
8-0.2500.250.51610.61760.59680.61360.59720.57140.61220.59680.5957
0110.48440.45710.46970.44680.47440.56820.52080.50790.5000
0.521.50.49280.41300.45450.42860.45450.45450.42550.48330.4348
0.11-0.2500.250.54690.58330.58620.61700.56960.53850.51020.50880.5333
0110.56920.47370.53030.52080.53090.52270.52080.50000.5000
0.521.50.45070.45000.43940.41070.42860.44640.47170.45450.4808
8-0.2500.250.50000.53190.53730.54720.50620.50000.51610.50770.5000
0110.53030.53660.50720.54170.47620.47460.49150.48440.5000
0.521.50.52460.52940.53730.54170.54430.55320.54000.52940.5319
0.51-0.2500.250.61900.58330.53970.60780.53410.50910.57140.56140.5660
0110.45450.48780.48440.50910.45650.44440.48280.46770.4643
0.521.50.50880.56250.50000.52080.51250.50000.46150.45100.4565
8-0.2500.250.53030.47620.50000.45830.48150.51720.52730.52830.5385
0110.55000.56760.57140.55320.60760.53330.54550.52380.5238
0.521.50.54790.53850.52240.56600.55840.46550.48280.47170.4630
0.91-0.2500.250.50880.50000.47460.48000.48840.49060.47170.48080.4808
0110.49150.51060.48480.50000.44790.41510.42590.42860.4200
0.521.50.57890.52940.51610.50980.55950.47830.47730.53330.5455
8-0.2500.250.45590.54350.51470.49090.48750.50000.50000.49020.4902
0110.48150.52940.52830.53660.54290.60380.60380.56860.5686
0.521.50.44070.45240.50000.51020.52500.42220.42220.40480.4048
ECPs of various confidence intervals under bivariate t-distribution with different ρ and δ, μ 1, μ 2, and (n,n 1,n 2)=(5,5,5) and ECW of various confidence intervals under bivariate t-distribution with different ρ and δ, μ 1, μ 2, and (n,n 1,n 2)=(5,5,5) and RNCP of various confidence intervals under bivariate t-distribution with different ρ and δ, μ 1, μ 2, and (n,n 1,n 2)=(5,5,5) and To investigate powers for the proposed CIs, we calculated the power in both the first and second simulation study. The results are shown in Tables 12 and 13. There is very little power in both the first and second simulation study to exclude a difference of zero.
Table 12

Power of various confidence intervals with different ρ and δ, μ 1, and (n,n 1,n 2)=(5,2,2) and

ρ \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}${\sigma _{1}^{2}}$\end{document}σ12 δ μ 1 μ 2 T 1 T 2 T g W s W a B 1 B 2 B 3 B 4
-0.91-0.2500.256.404.355.107.3012.605.205.106.405.05
0.521.57.255.205.509.1013.706.506.357.806.35
8-0.2500.255.803.305.257.6013.305.505.106.104.95
0.521.56.204.007.658.2514.405.906.307.656.40
-0.51-0.2500.256.504.006.607.7513.104.704.655.454.80
0.521.57.754.907.6010.1515.856.105.956.405.70
8-0.2500.256.604.557.009.5515.305.805.406.205.70
0.521.55.804.106.058.2513.855.505.705.855.45
-0.11-0.2500.256.953.558.456.9012.704.654.504.704.65
0.521.57.704.857.559.9015.756.806.806.856.65
8-0.2500.257.253.957.909.7515.606.256.156.256.20
0.521.56.603.507.258.7515.205.255.355.155.10
01-0.2500.258.104.607.108.2013.405.455.455.455.45
0.521.58.354.708.5011.5017.906.556.556.656.65
8-0.2500.257.453.508.909.1015.255.455.455.405.40
0.521.57.303.657.4510.5516.806.106.106.106.10
0.11-0.2500.257.053.959.858.4013.855.455.605.605.70
0.521.57.554.458.4511.5516.905.856.155.905.95
8-0.2500.256.303.858.708.0514.204.754.855.005.05
0.521.57.654.059.609.7016.405.856.006.256.30
0.51-0.2500.257.304.159.356.9512.905.104.856.154.90
0.521.58.404.758.1512.7019.356.005.957.106.15
8-0.2500.258.804.207.809.8015.405.305.156.805.30
0.521.59.104.058.4011.5516.456.656.958.507.15
0.91-0.2500.257.305.258.107.5013.605.105.357.205.40
0.521.58.455.358.5518.0026.957.557.708.257.75
8-0.2500.258.955.405.357.2513.455.805.907.106.10
0.521.511.455.306.2512.3018.2010.058.009.607.95
Table 13

Power of various confidence intervals with different ρ and δ, μ 1, μ 2, (n,n 1,n 2)=(5,5,2), when

Bivariate normal distribution
ρ δ μ 1 μ 2 T 3 T 4 T 5 W s W a B 1 B 2 B 3 B 4
-0.9-0.2500.251.52.54.37.512.45.24.86.65.0
0.521.53.24.16.410.815.67.57.49.47.4
-0.5-0.2500.253.93.05.78.512.95.65.15.65.2
0.521.54.03.06.59.914.46.86.97.36.8
-0.1-0.2500.253.62.96.29.514.85.85.85.96.0
0.521.55.54.98.711.316.48.38.27.97.9
0-0.2500.254.43.36.99.814.75.75.75.95.9
0.521.54.74.07.610.816.77.97.97.67.6
0.1-0.2500.253.52.95.58.213.35.85.75.75.7
0.521.55.14.38.111.616.27.67.37.57.4
0.5-0.2500.254.73.35.99.614.76.76.58.56.3
0.521.55.35.18.413.117.911.110.813.210.6
0.9-0.2500.253.93.54.79.715.410.76.527.56.4
0.521.59.16.08.213.718.027.911.427.311.2
Bivariate t-distribution
-0.9-0.2500.251.22.14.06.711.64.95.15.94.7
0.521.51.52.04.06.111.44.95.06.14.3
-0.5-0.2500.252.01.54.26.212.24.85.15.14.9
0.521.52.01.85.06.812.76.36.36.45.9
-0.1-0.2500.252.92.86.08.315.27.17.06.76.4
0.521.52.01.95.07.012.74.44.44.14.0
0-0.2500.252.52.04.16.712.45.05.04.54.5
0.521.52.21.94.66.512.86.16.15.95.9
0.1-0.2500.252.42.14.47.012.05.25.15.05.0
0.521.52.92.75.67.413.25.35.14.95.0
0.5-0.2500.251.32.04.46.111.45.05.26.45.2
0.521.51.72.04.76.111.44.95.15.94.7
0.9-0.2500.251.32.83.45.010.45.04.85.44.4
0.521.52.12.22.75.111.75.75.85.85.2

Results of simulation studies

From Tables 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13, we have the following findings. First, when Σ is unknown, the CIs based on the the Bootstrap-resampling-based methods except for B3 behave satisfactorily in the sense that their ECPs are close to the pre-specified confidence level 95 % (e.g., see Tables 3 and 6); the CI based on the Bootstrap-resampling-based method B1 generally yielded shorter ECWs than others (e.g., see Tables 4 and 7); the CIs corresponding to bivariate t-distribution are generally wider than those corresponding to bivariate normal distribution; the ECWs decrease as the correlation coefficient ρ increases. Second, the RNCPs of all the considered CIs lie in the interval [0.4,0.6] (e.g., see Tables 5 and 8), which show that our derived CIs generally demonstrate symmetry. Third, when , the CIs based on statistics T3, T4 and T5 behave unsatisfactory (e.g., see Tables 9 and 10) because their corresponding ECPs are almost less than the pre-specified confidence level 95 %. Fourth, powers corresponding to W and B1 are larger than others (e.g., see Tables 12 and 13). From the above findings, we would recommend the usage of the Bootstrap-resampling-based CI (i.e., B1) because its coverage probability is generally close to the pre-chosen confidence level, it consistently yields the shortest interval width even when sample size is small, it usually guarantees its ratios of the MNCPs to the non-coverage probabilities lying in [0.4, 0.6], and its power is usually larger than others. ECPs of various confidence intervals with different ρ and δ, μ 1, μ 2, (n,n 1,n 2)=(5,5,2), when ECW of various confidence interals with different ρ and δ, μ 1, μ 2, (n,n 1,n 2)=(5,5,2), when RNCP of various confidence intervals with different ρ and δ, μ 1, μ 2, (n,n 1,n 2)=(5,5,2), when Power of various confidence intervals with different ρ and δ, μ 1, and (n,n 1,n 2)=(5,2,2) and Power of various confidence intervals with different ρ and δ, μ 1, μ 2, (n,n 1,n 2)=(5,5,2), when

An worked example

In this subsection, the data introduced in Section for the action of two doses of formoterol solution aerosol are used to illustrate the proposed methodologies. In this example, we are interested in CI construction of the difference of two FEV1 values for two doses of formoterol solution aerosol. Under the previously given notation, we have n=7, n1=9, n2=8, (or ). Various 95 % CIs for δ under Σ unknown assumption are presented in Table 14. Examination of Table 14 shows that the actions of two doses of formaterol solutions aerosol are the same because all the derived CIs include zero.
Table 14

Various 95 % confidence intervals for δ=μ 1−μ 2 based on formoterol solution aerosol

T 1 T 2 T 3 T 4 T 5 T g
Lower-0.2751-0.4764-0.472-0.5542-0.4431-0.4883
Upper0.10710.52200.37410.59990.48880.5039
Width0.38220.99840.84611.15410.93190.9922
W s W a B 1 B 2 B 3 B 4
Lower-0.5940-0.5787-0.5408-0.5938-0.5259-0.5681
Upper0.64950.63340.39950.43940.43090.4058
Width1.24351.21210.94031.03320.95680.9739
Various 95 % confidence intervals for δ=μ 1−μ 2 based on formoterol solution aerosol

Discussion

Although testing equivalence of two correlated means with incomplete data has been studied, there is little work done on their interval estimators. To address the issue, this paper proposes various interval estimators of the difference of two correlated means for Σ known and unknown cases based on the large sample method, hybrid method and Bootstrap-resampling method. Extensive simulation studies are conducted to evaluate the finite performance of the proposed CIs in terms of the empirical coverage probability, empirical interval width and ratio of the mesial non-coverage probability to the non-coverage probability (RNCP). Empirical results evidence that the Bootstrap-resampling-based CIs B1, B2, B4 behave satisfactorily for small to moderate sample sizes in the sense that their coverage probabilities could be well controlled around the pre-specified nominal confidence level and their RNCPs almost lie in the interval [0.4, 0.6]. However, confidence intervals based on the large sample method and hybrid method behave unsatisfactory for small sample sizes because the distributions of statistics T1,⋯,T5 are asymptotical, and these asymptotical distributions are proper only when N→∞. When Σ is unknown, using GEE method to estimate variance is less efficient. It is interesting to investigate confidence interval construction of the difference of two means with incomplete correlated data under missing at random and non-ignorable missing data mechanism assumptions of bivariate variables. We are working on the topics.

Conclusion

According to the aforementioned findings, we can draw the following conclusions. The Bootstrap-resampling-based CI B1 is a desirable interval estimator for the difference of two means with incomplete correlated data.
  12 in total

1.  Small-sample adjustments in using the sandwich variance estimator in generalized estimating equations.

Authors:  Wei Pan; Melanie M Wall
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2002-05-30       Impact factor: 2.373

2.  Confidence interval construction for proportion ratio in paired studies based on hybrid method.

Authors:  Man-Lai Tang; Hui-Qiong Li; Nian-Sheng Tang
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  2010-09-27       Impact factor: 3.021

3.  Exact and approximate unconditional confidence intervals for proportion difference in the presence of incomplete data.

Authors:  Man-Lai Tang; Man-Ho Ling; Guo-Liang Tian
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2009-02-15       Impact factor: 2.373

4.  The generalisation of student's problems when several different population variances are involved.

Authors:  B L WELCH
Journal:  Biometrika       Date:  1947       Impact factor: 2.445

5.  Interval estimation for the difference between independent proportions: comparison of eleven methods.

Authors:  R G Newcombe
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1998-04-30       Impact factor: 2.373

6.  Corrected profile likelihood confidence interval for binomial paired incomplete data.

Authors:  Vivek Pradhan; Sandeep Menon; Ujjwal Das
Journal:  Pharm Stat       Date:  2013-01-07       Impact factor: 1.894

7.  Comparing incomplete paired binomial data under non-random mechanisms.

Authors:  S C Choi; D M Stablein
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1988-09       Impact factor: 2.373

8.  Correlated binary regression with covariates specific to each binary observation.

Authors:  R L Prentice
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1988-12       Impact factor: 2.571

9.  A hybrid paired and unpaired analysis for the comparison of proportions.

Authors:  P C Thomson
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1995-07-15       Impact factor: 2.373

10.  Using Bayesian p-values in a 2 × 2 table of matched pairs with incompletely classified data.

Authors:  Yan Lin; Stuart Lipsitz; Debajyoti Sinha; Atul A Gawande; Scott E Regenbogen; Caprice C Greenberg
Journal:  J R Stat Soc Ser C Appl Stat       Date:  2009-05-01       Impact factor: 1.864

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.