Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation

Online

99,00 € / $149.00*

* Prices subject to change. Shipping costs will be added if applicable.
Publication Date:
January 2011
ISSN:
1557-4679
DOI:
10.2202/1557-4679.1259

See all formats and pricing

Online
Individual Subscription Online only
Euro [D] 99.00
RRP for USA, Canada, Mexico
US$ 149.00 *
Print
Individual Subscription Online only
Euro [D] 285.00
RRP for USA, Canada, Mexico
US$ 384.00 *
Print + Online
Individual Subscription Online only
Euro [D] 342.00
RRP for USA, Canada, Mexico
US$ 461.00 *
*Prices subject to change. Shipping costs will be added if applicable.

Ed. by Hubbard, Alan E. / van der Laan, Mark J.

1 Issue per year

IMPACT FACTOR 2011: 1.284

Regression Calibration with Heteroscedastic Error Variance

Donna Spiegelman / Roger Logan / Douglas Grove

1Harvard School of Public Health

1Harvard School of Public Health

1Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center

Citation Information: The International Journal of Biostatistics. Volume 7, Issue 1, Pages 1–34, ISSN (Online) 1557-4679, DOI: 10.2202/1557-4679.1259, January 2011

Publication History:
Published Online:
2011-01-06

The problem of covariate measurement error with heteroscedastic measurement error variance is considered. Standard regression calibration assumes that the measurement error has a homoscedastic measurement error variance. An estimator is proposed to correct regression coefficients for covariate measurement error with heteroscedastic variance. Point and interval estimates are derived. Validation data containing the gold standard must be available. This estimator is a closed-form correction of the uncorrected primary regression coefficients, which may be of logistic or Cox proportional hazards model form, and is closely related to the version of regression calibration developed by Rosner et al. (1990). The primary regression model can include multiple covariates measured without error. The use of these estimators is illustrated in two data sets, one taken from occupational epidemiology (the ACE study) and one taken from nutritional epidemiology (the Nurses' Health Study). In both cases, although there was evidence of moderate heteroscedasticity, there was little difference in estimation or inference using this new procedure compared to standard regression calibration. It is shown theoretically that unless the relative risk is large or measurement error severe, standard regression calibration approximations will typically be adequate, even with moderate heteroscedasticity in the measurement error model variance. In a detailed simulation study, standard regression calibration performed either as well as or better than the new estimator. When the disease is rare and the errors normally distributed, or when measurement error is moderate, standard regression calibration remains the method of choice.

Keywords: measurement error; logistic regression; heteroscedasticity; regression calibration

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.