Flexible Distributions for Triple-Goal Estimates in Two-Stage Hierarchical Models

Published in: Computational Statistics and Data Analysis, v. 50, no. 11, July 2006, p. 3243-3262

Posted on RAND.org on January 01, 2006

by Susan M. Paddock, Greg Ridgeway, Rongheng Lin, Thomas A. Louis

Read More

Access further information on this document at www.sciencedirect.com

This article was published outside of RAND. The full text of the article can be found at the link above.

Performance evaluations often aim to achieve goals such as obtaining estimates of unit-specific means, ranks, and the distribution of unit-specific parameters. The Bayesian approach provides a powerful way to structure models for achieving these goals. While no single estimate can be optimal for achieving all three inferential goals, the communication and credibility of results will be enhanced by reporting a single estimate that performs well for all three. Triple goal estimates [Shen and Louis, 1998. Triple-goal estimates in two-stage hierarchical models. J. Roy. Statist. Soc. Ser. B 60, 455b6s471] have this performance and are appealing for performance evaluations. Because triple-goal estimates rely more heavily on the entire distribution than do posterior means, they are more sensitive to misspecification of the population distribution and we present various strategies to robustify triple-goal estimates by using nonparametric distributions. We evaluate performance based on the correctness and efficiency of the robustified estimates under several scenarios and compare empirical Bayes and fully Bayesian approaches to model the population distribution. We find that when data are quite informative, conclusions are robust to model misspecification. However, with less information in the data, conclusions can be quite sensitive to the choice of population distribution. Generally, use of a nonparametric distribution pays very little in efficiency when a parametric population distribution is valid, but successfully protects against model misspecification.

This report is part of the RAND Corporation External publication series. Many RAND studies are published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, as chapters in commercial books, or as documents published by other organizations.

Our mission to help improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis is enabled through our core values of quality and objectivity and our unwavering commitment to the highest level of integrity and ethical behavior. To help ensure our research and analysis are rigorous, objective, and nonpartisan, we subject our research publications to a robust and exacting quality-assurance process; avoid both the appearance and reality of financial and other conflicts of interest through staff training, project screening, and a policy of mandatory disclosure; and pursue transparency in our research engagements through our commitment to the open publication of our research findings and recommendations, disclosure of the source of funding of published research, and policies to ensure intellectual independence. For more information, visit www.rand.org/about/principles.

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.