Notice: On April 23, 2014, Statalist moved from an email list to a forum, based at statalist.org.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

From |
"Jason Becker" <[email protected]> |

To |
<[email protected]> |

Subject |
RE: st: Accounting for measurement error in regression |

Date |
Thu, 21 Oct 2010 09:14:20 -0400 |

```
Thanks Stas for this response. This helps clarify things a bit for me-- I've been told this was measurement error but that didn't match with what I recalled and I knew I had seen the formula before.
This clears up a bunch of confusion I had based on conversations of other folks around the Department here.
_____
Jason Becker
Research Specialist
Office of Data Analysis and Research
Rhode Island Department of Education
255 Westminster Street Providence, RI 02903
(401)-222-8495
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Stas Kolenikov
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 5:06 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: st: Accounting for measurement error in regression
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 3:47 PM, Jason Becker <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> My data has measurement error which is generally modeled as following a
> Bernoulli distribution. The data are percentages of students at a
> school who score above a cutoff point on an exam, and the error is
> modeled as sqrt((p)*(q)/N) where p = percentage of students above the
> cutoff, q = percentage of students below the cutoff, and N is the number
> of students).
p*(1-p)/N is the sampling variability: you believe there is a true
probability of something equal to p, and out of N sampled objects, you
will observe variance p*(1-p)*N in the number of positive responses.
You probably want to address the inaccuracy of the instrument, and
that is a far more complex thing to do.
Suppose statalist subscription were only open to people with IQ above
120, and there was an instrument that gives you 3 point margin of
accuracy (standard deviation of the scores in repeated testing, or
between people of identical ability). Then for a person with a given
IQ the probability of getting the highly sought statalist subscription
is p(IQ)=Prob[ N(IQ,3) > 120 ]. To quantify the overall measurement
error for a given university, you would want to sum all
p(IQ)*(1-p(IQ)) over the Stata users in this university; this should
give you something like a variance of the number of people eligible
for subscription. Note that this is conditional on the test score, so
I imagine that for tests with good psychometric properties
(reliability), this variance will be much smaller than p*(1-p)*N where
p = Prob[ N(100,15)>120 ], which is the measure that you think of
using.
--
Stas Kolenikov, also found at http://stas.kolenikov.name
Small print: I use this email account for mailing lists only.
*
* For searches and help try:
* http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search
* http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
* http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/
*
* For searches and help try:
* http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search
* http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
* http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/
```

**References**:**st: Accounting for measurement error in regression***From:*"Jason Becker" <[email protected]>

**Re: st: Accounting for measurement error in regression***From:*Stas Kolenikov <[email protected]>

- Prev by Date:
**Re: st: RE: Adding normal density to overlayed histograms** - Next by Date:
**st: RE: Adding "offset" to ZINB and ZIP models** - Previous by thread:
**Re: st: Accounting for measurement error in regression** - Next by thread:
**st: dropped cases using mi impute mvn** - Index(es):