Modern ecological research often involves the comparison of the usage of habitat types or food items to the availability of those resources to the animal. Widely used methods of determining preference from measurements of usage and availability depend critically on the array of components that the researcher, often with a degree of arbitrariness, deems available to the animal. This paper proposes a new method, based on ranks of components by usage and by availability. A virtue of the rank procedure is that it provides comparable results whether a questionable component is included or excluded from consideration. Statistical tests of significance are given for the method. The paper also offers a hierarchical ordering of selection processes. This hierarchy resolves certain inconsistencies among studies of selection and is compatible with the analytic technique offered in the paper. Central to the study of animal ecology is the usage an animal makes of its environment: specifically, the kinds of foods it consumes and the varieties of habitats it occupies. Many analytic procedures have been de- vised to treat data on the usage of such resources, particularly in relation to information on their avail- ability to the animal, for the purpose of determining "preference." The objectives of this report are to de- scribe the problem of determining preference by com- paring usage and availability data, to illustrate a seri- ous shortcoming in the routine application of most procedures for comparing these data, and to suggest a new method that resolves this difficulty. The pro- posed technique results in a ranking of the components on the basis of preference, and permits significance tests of the ranking.

/pdf/the-comparison-of-usage-and-availability-measurements-for-4iriiv715a.pdf

The comparison of usage and availability measurements for evaluating resource preference

The statistical literature on tests to compare treatments after the analysis of variance is reviewed, and the use of these tests in ecology is examined. Monte Carlo simulations on normal and lognormal data indicate that many of the tests commonly used are inappropriate or inefficient. Particular tests are recommended for unplanned multiple comparisons on the basis of controlling experimentwise type I error rate and providing maximum power. These include tests for parametric and nonparametric cases, equal and unequal sample sizes, homogeneous and heterogeneous variances, non-independent means (repeated measures or adjusted means), and comparing treatments to a control. Formulae and a worked example are provided. The problem of violations of assumptions, especially variance heterogeneity, was investigated using simulations, and particular strategies are recommended. The advantages and use of planned comparisons in ecology are discussed, and the philosophy of hypothesis testing with unplanned multiple comparisons is consid- ered in relation to confidence intervals and statistical estimation.

https://www.fc.up.pt/pessoas/amsantos/support/dayquin1989.pdf

Comparisons of Treatments After an Analysis of Variance in Ecology

Preface. List of examples. 1. Introduction. 1.1 What are Bayesian methods? 1.2 What do we mean by 'health--care evaluation'? 1.3 A Bayesian approach to evaluation. 1.4 The aim of this book and the intended audience. 1.5 Structure of the book. 2. Basic Concepts from Traditional Statistical Analysis. 2.1 Probability. 2.1.1 What is probability? 2.1.2 Odds and log--odds. 2.1.3 Bayes theorem for simple events. 2.2 Random variables, parameters and likelihood. 2.2.1 Random variables and their distributions. 2.2.2 Expectation, variance, covariance and correlation. 2.2.3 Parametric distributions and conditional independence. 2.2.4 Likelihoods. 2.3 The normal distribution. 2.4 Normal likelihoods. 2.4.1 Normal approximations for binary data. 2.4.2 Normal likelihoods for survival data. 2.4.3 Normal likelihoods for count responses. 2.4.4 Normal likelihoods for continuous responses. 2.5 Classical inference. 2.6 A catalogue of useful distributionsaeo. 2.6.1 Binomial and Bernoulli. 2.6.2 Poisson. 2.6.3 Beta. 2.6.4 Uniform. 2.6.5 Gamma. 2.6.6 Root--inverse--gamma. 2.6.7 Half--normal. 2.6.8 Log--normal. 2.6.9 Student's t. 2.6.10 Bivariate normal. 2.7 Key points. Exercises. 3. An Overview of the Bayesian Approach. 3.1 Subjectivity and context. 3.2 Bayes theorem for two hypotheses. 3.3 Comparing simple hypotheses: likelihood ratios and Bayes factors. 3.4 Exchangeability and parametric modellingaeo. 3.5 Bayes theorem for general quantities. 3.6 Bayesian analysis with binary data. 3.6.1 Binary data with a discrete prior distribution. 3.6.2 Conjugate analysis for binary data. 3.7 Bayesian analysis with normal distributions. 3.8 Point estimation, interval estimation and interval hypotheses. 3.9 The prior distribution. 3.10 How to use Bayes theorem to interpret trial results. 3.11 The 'credibility' of significant trial resultsaeo. 3.12 Sequential use of Bayes theoremaeo. 3.13 Predictions. 3.13.1 Predictions in the Bayesian framework. 3.13.2 Predictions for binary dataaeo. 3.13.3 Predictions for normal data. 3.14 Decision--making. 3.15 Design. 3.16 Use of historical data. 3.17 Multiplicity, exchangeability and hierarchical models. 3.18 Dealing with nuisance parametersaeo. 3.18.1 Alternative methods for eliminating nuisance parametersaeo. 3.18.2 Profile likelihood in a hierarchical modelaeo. 3.19 Computational issues. 3.19.1 Monte Carlo methods. 3.19.2 Markov chain Monte Carlo methods. 3.19.3 WinBUGS. 3.20 Schools of Bayesians. 3.21 A Bayesian checklist. 3.22 Further reading. 3.23 Key points. Exercises. 4. Comparison of Alternative Approaches to Inference. 4.1 A structure for alternative approaches. 4.2 Conventional statistical methods used in health--care evaluation. 4.3 The likelihood principle, sequential analysis and types of error. 4.3.1 The likelihood principle. 4.3.2 Sequential analysis. 4.3.3 Type I and Type II error. 4.4 P--values and Bayes factorsaeo. 4.4.1 Criticism of P--values. 4.4.2 Bayes factors as an alternative to P--values: simple hypotheses. 4.4.3 Bayes factors as an alternative to P--values: composite hypotheses. 4.4.4 Bayes factors in preference studies. 4.4.5 Lindley's paradox. 4.5 Key points. Exercises. 5. Prior Distributions. 5.1 Introduction. 5.2 Elicitation of opinion: a brief review. 5.2.1 Background to elicitation. 5.2.2 Elicitation techniques. 5.2.3 Elicitation from multiple experts. 5.3 Critique of prior elicitation. 5.4 Summary of external evidenceaeo. 5.5 Default priors. 5.5.1 'Non--informative' or 'reference' priors: 5.5.2 'Sceptical' priors. 5.5.3 'Enthusiastic' priors. 5.5.4 Priors with a point mass at the null hypothesis ('lump--and--smear' priors)aeo. 5.6 Sensitivity analysis and 'robust' priors. 5.7 Hierarchical priors. 5.7.1 The judgement of exchangeability. 5.7.2 The form for the random--effects distribution. 5.7.3 The prior for the standard deviation of the random effectsaeo. 5.8 Empirical criticism of priors. 5.9 Key points. Exercises. 6. Randomised Controlled Trials. 6.1 Introduction. 6.2 Use of a loss function: is a clinical trial for inference or decision? 6.3 Specification of null hypotheses. 6.4 Ethics and randomisation: a brief review. 6.4.1 Is randomisation necessary? 6.4.2 When is it ethical to randomise? 6.5 Sample size of non--sequential trials. 6.5.1 Alternative approaches to sample--size assessment. 6.5.2 'Classical power': hybrid classical--Bayesian methods assuming normality. 6.5.3 'Bayesian power'. 6.5.4 Adjusting formulae for different hypotheses. 6.5.5 Predictive distribution of power and necessary sample size. 6.6 Monitoring of sequential trials. 6.6.1 Introduction. 6.6.2 Monitoring using the posterior distribution. 6.6.3 Monitoring using predictions: 'interim power'. 6.6.4 Monitoring using a formal loss function. 6.6.5 Frequentist properties of sequential Bayesian methods. 6.6.6 Bayesian methods and data monitoring committees. 6.7 The role of 'scepticism' in confirmatory studies. 6.8 Multiplicity in randomised trials. 6.8.1 Subset analysis. 6.8.2 Multi--centre analysis. 6.8.3 Cluster randomization. 6.8.4 Multiple endpoints and treatments. 6.9 Using historical controlsaeo. 6.10 Data--dependent allocation. 6.11 Trial designs other than two parallel groups. 6.12 Other aspects of drug development. 6.13 Further reading. 6.14 Key points. Exercises. 7. Observational Studies. 7.1 Introduction. 7.2 Alternative study designs. 7.3 Explicit modelling of biases. 7.4 Institutional comparisons. 7.5 Key points. Exercises. 8. Evidence Synthesis. 8.1 Introduction. 8.2 'Standard' meta--analysis. 8.2.1 A Bayesian perspective. 8.2.2 Some delicate issues in Bayesian meta--analysis. 8.2.3 The relationship between treatment effect and underlying risk. 8.3 Indirect comparison studies. 8.4 Generalised evidence synthesis. 8.5 Further reading. 8.6 Key points. Exercises. 9. Cost--effectiveness, Policy--Making and Regulation. 9.1 Introduction. 9.2 Contexts. 9.3 'Standard' cost--effectiveness analysis without uncertainty. 9.4 'Two--stage' and integrated approaches to uncertainty in cost--effectiveness modeling. 9.5 Probabilistic analysis of sensitivity to uncertainty about parameters: two--stage approach. 9.6 Cost--effectiveness analyses of a single study: integrated approach. 9.7 Levels of uncertainty in cost--effectiveness models. 9.8 Complex cost--effectiveness models. 9.8.1 Discrete--time, discrete--state Markov models. 9.8.2 Micro--simulation in cost--effectiveness models. 9.8.3 Micro--simulation and probabilistic sensitivity analysis. 9.8.4 Comprehensive decision modeling. 9.9 Simultaneous evidence synthesis and complex cost--effectiveness modeling. 9.9.1 Generalised meta--analysis of evidence. 9.9.2 Comparison of integrated Bayesian and two--stage approach. 9.10 Cost--effectiveness of carrying out research: payback models. 9.10.1 Research planning in the public sector. 9.10.2 Research planning in the pharmaceutical industry. 9.10.3 Value of information. 9.11 Decision theory in cost--effectiveness analysis, regulation and policy. 9.12 Regulation and health policy. 9.12.1 The regulatory context. 9.12.2 Regulation of pharmaceuticals. 9.12.3 Regulation of medical devices. 9.13 Conclusions. 9.14 Key points. Exercises. 10. Conclusions and Implications for Future Research. 10.1 Introduction. 10.2 General advantages and problems of a Bayesian approach. 10.3 Future research and development. Appendix: Websites and Software. A.1 The site for this book. A.2 Bayesian methods in health--care evaluation. A.3 Bayesian software. A.4 General Bayesian sites. References. Index.

Bayesian approaches to clinical trials and health-care evaluation

Computer simulation techniques were used to study the Type I and Type III error rates and the correct decision rates for ten pairwise multiple comparison procedures. Results indicated that Scheffe's test, Tukey's test, and the Student-Newman-Keuls test are less appropriate than either the least significant difference with the restriction that the analysis of variance F value be significant at α = .05, two Bayesian modifications of the least significant difference, or Duncan's multiple range test. Because of its ease of application, many researchers may prefer the restricted least significant difference.

An Evaluation of Ten Pairwise Multiple Comparison Procedures by Monte Carlo Methods

This paper studies the multiplicity-correction effect of standard Bayesian variable-selection priors in linear regression. Our first goal is to clarify when, and how, multiplicity correction happens automatically in Bayesian analysis, and to distinguish this correction from the Bayesian Ockham’s-razor effect. Our second goal is to contrast empirical-Bayes and fully Bayesian approaches to variable selection through examples, theoretical results and simulations. Considerable differences between the two approaches are found. In particular, we prove a theorem that characterizes a surprising aymptotic discrepancy between fully Bayes and empirical Bayes. This discrepancy arises from a different source than the failure to account for hyperparameter uncertainty in the empirical-Bayes estimate. Indeed, even at the extreme, when the empirical-Bayes estimate converges asymptotically to the true variable-inclusion probability, the potential for a serious difference remains.

/pdf/bayes-and-empirical-bayes-multiplicity-adjustment-in-the-43hdpk0mqi.pdf

Bayes and empirical-Bayes multiplicity adjustment in the variable-selection problem

A simple LSD (least significant difference) rule is presented for simultaneously testing the differences between n treatments considered in all possible pairs. This rule is a simpler, fully completed, version of the Bayes rule presented for special cases in Duncan [4]. It is based on the same multiple decision theory model except for a modified and extended use of a conjugate chi-square density in the prior. The new rule has the same intuitively appealing dependence on the between-treatment F ratio, varying from a sensitive comparisonwise-α-like rule when F is large or moderate, to a conservative experimentwise-α-like rule when F is small. Tables of t for computing the LSD are presented for three choices of a type-1 to type-2 error-seriousness ratio, k = 50, 100 and 500 (analogous to the usual choices of α = .10, .05 and .01 in testing a single difference), and for full ranges of F and its degree of freedom q and f.

A Bayes Rule for the Symmetric Multiple Comparisons Problem

This paper presents the mathematical derivation of a Bayes solution for the symmetric multiple comparisons problem presented earlier by Waller and Duncan [4]. Because the earlier paper details the model and assumptions on which the solution is based, only the functions and results needed to complete the development are stated here. Typically the data for a multiple comparisons problem consists of n independent normally distibuted t r ea tmen t means (~, z2, " " , ~ ) which est imate n t rue means (pl, p~, . . . , p~) and an independent estimate, say 8~E with f~ degrees of freedom, of the error variance a~. Fur ther , we suppose tha t each mean ~ is based on r replications. The problem is then to choose for each of the h = n ( n 1 ) ordered pairs of means ei ther decision d~: ~,>;~j or decision d o , j : /~ not ranked relative to/J j . However, Duncan [2] shows tha t under the assumptions of symmet ry and an additive loss model, the Bayes rule for the full multiple comparisons problem is the simultaneous application of the Bayes rule to select ei ther d~ or d[~ for the means (/~,/~2) to all h pairs of means. Thus our major concern is to obtain the Bayes rule for selecting one of the decisions

Ray A. Waller

Papers

A Bayes Rule for the Symmetric Multiple Comparisons Problem

A Bayes rule for the symmetric multiple comparisons problem II

Corrigenda: A Bayes Rule for the Symmetric Multiple Comparisons Problem