Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T02:53:17.785Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sequential design for estimating levels with low response rates in potato drop tests and other binary response experiments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

C. D. Kershaw  and
D. C. McRae
C. D. Kershaw
Affiliation:
Agricultural and Food Research Council Unit of Statistics, Edinburgh
D. C. McRae
Affiliation:
Scottish Institute of Agricultural Engineering, Penicuik
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Tests were to be made to estimate the ED 10 for surface splitting of potatoes; that is the dropping height for which on average 10% of potatoes sustain a surface split. To got good estimates for the ED 10 it is necessary to drop potatoes from heights close to this level. It was decided that a sequential procedure should be used to alter drop heights so that most drops would be made from heights close to the ED 10. Several procedures were investigated by calculation of large-sample properties of estimators and computer simulation of experiments. A procedure was then chosen for the drop tests. Results show that this procedure is easy to use, and also yields satisfactory estimates of ED 10s.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 105 , Issue 1 , August 1985 , pp. 51 - 57
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Anderson, T. W., McCarthy, P. J. & Tukey, J. W. (1946). ‘Staircase’ method of sensitivity testing. Statistical research group, Princetown University. Naval Ordinance Report, no. 65–46.Google Scholar
Billingsley, P. (1961). Statistical Inference for Markov Processes. Institute of Mathematical Statistics – University of Chicago Statistical Research Monographs. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Brown, A. E. (1965). Measurement of auditory thresholds. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 39, 89–92.Google Scholar
Brownlee, K. I., Hodges, J. L. & Rosenblatt, M. (1953). The Up-and-Down method with small samples. Journal of the American Statistical Association 48, 262–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, W. J. & Mood, A. M. (1948). A method for obtaining and analyzing sensitivity data. Journal of the American Statistical Association 43, 109–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fieller, E. C. (1944). A fundamental formula in the statistics of biological assay, and some applications. Quarterly Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmacology 17, 117–123.Google Scholar
Finney, D. J. (1964). Statistical Method in Biological Assay, 2nd edn.London: Charles Griffen.Google Scholar
Kershaw, C. D. (1983). Sequential estimation for binary response. Ph. D. thesis, Edinburgh University.Google Scholar
Klmball, A. W., Burnett, W. T. & Doherty, D. G. (1957). Chemical protection against ionizing radiation: 1. Sampling methods for screening compounds in radiation protection studies with mice. Radiation Research 7, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McRae, D. C, Carruthers, J. & Porteous, R. L. (1976). The effect of drop height on damage sustained by some maincrop potato varieties. Departmental Note SIN/202. Scottish Institute of Agricultural Engineering.Google Scholar
Potato Marketing Board (1974). National Damage Survey 1973.Google Scholar
Tsutakawa, R. K. (1967). Random walk design in bio-assay. Journal of American Statistical Association 62, 842–856.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wetherill, G. B. (1963). Sequential estimation of quantal response curves. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B25, 1–48.Google Scholar