Equivalence tests for comparing correlation and regression coefficients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Equivalence tests are an alternative to traditional difference-based tests for demonstrating a lack of association between two variables. While there are several recent studies investigating equivalence tests for comparing means, little research has been conducted on equivalence methods for evaluating the equivalence or similarity of two correlation coefficients or two regression coefficients. The current project proposes novel tests for evaluating the equivalence of two regression or correlation coefficients derived from the two one-sided tests (TOST) method (Schuirmann, 1987, J. Pharmacokinet. Biopharm, 15, 657) and an equivalence test by Anderson and Hauck (1983, Stat. Commun., 12, 2663). A simulation study was used to evaluate the performance of these tests and compare them with the common, yet inappropriate, method of assessing equivalence using non-rejection of the null hypothesis in difference-based tests. Results demonstrate that equivalence tests have more accurate probabilities of declaring equivalence than difference-based tests. However, equivalence tests require large sample sizes to ensure adequate power. We recommend the Anderson-Hauck equivalence test over the TOST method for comparing correlation or regression coefficients.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.119 | 0.526 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".