Hypotheses Testing from Complex Survey Data Using Bootstrap Weights: A Unified Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Standard statistical methods without taking proper account of the complexity of a survey design can lead to erroneous inferences when applied to survey data due to unequal selection probabilities, clustering, and other design features. In particular, the Type I error rates of hypotheses tests using standard methods can be much larger than the nominal significance level. Methods incorporating design features in testing hypotheses have been proposed, including Wald tests and quasi-score tests that involve estimated covariance matrices of parameter estimates. In this article, we present a unified approach to hypothesis testing without requiring estimated covariance matrices or design effects, by constructing bootstrap approximations to quasi-likelihood ratio statistics and quasi-score statistics and establishing its asymptotic validity. The proposed method can be easily implemented without a specific software designed for complex survey sampling. We also consider hypothesis testing for categorical data and present a bootstrap procedure for testing simple goodness of fit and independence in a two-way table. In simulation studies, the Type I error rates of the proposed approach are much closer to their nominal significance level compared with the naive likelihood ratio test and quasi-score test. An application to an educational survey under a logistic regression model is also presented. Supplementary materials for this article are available online.
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 | 0.078 | 0.169 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".