Two‐phase sampling designs for data validation in settings with covariate measurement error and continuous outcome. (15th April 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Amorim, Gustavo; Tao, Ran; Lotspeich, Sarah; Shaw, Pamela A.; Lumley, Thomas; Shepherd, Bryan E.
• Is Part Of: Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Volume 184:Number 4(2021)
• Page Start: 1368
• Page End: 1389
• Publication Date: 2021-04-15
• Subjects: design‐based estimator -- linear Regression -- measurement error -- model‐based estimator -- two‐phase design; Social sciences -- Statistical methods -- Periodicals; Statistics -- Periodicals; 300.15195
• DOI: 10.1111/rssa.12689
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0964-1998

Abstract

Abstract: Measurement errors are present in many data collection procedures and can harm analyses by biasing estimates. To correct for measurement error, researchers often validate a subsample of records and then incorporate the information learned from this validation sample into estimation. In practice, the validation sample is often selected using simple random sampling (SRS). However, SRS leads to inefficient estimates because it ignores information on the error‐prone variables, which can be highly correlated to the unknown truth. Applying and extending ideas from the two‐phase sampling literature, we propose optimal and nearly optimal designs for selecting the validation sample in the classical measurement‐error framework. We target designs to improve the efficiency of model‐based and design‐based estimators, and show how the resulting designs compare to each other. Our results suggest that sampling schemes that extract more information from the error‐prone data are substantially more efficient than SRS, for both design‐ and model‐based estimators. The optimal procedure, however, depends on the analysis method, and can differ substantially. This is supported by theory and simulations. We illustrate the various designs using data from an HIV cohort study.