Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-8gtf8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-21T11:15:39.858Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Caveat on the use of a Revised Bootstrap Algorithm

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Mark D. Schluchter  and
Alan B. Forsythe
Mark D. Schluchter*
Affiliation:
Department of Biomathematics, University of California, Los Angeles
Alan B. Forsythe
Affiliation:
Department of Biomathematics, University of California, Los Angeles
*
Requests for reprints should be sent to Mark D. Schluchter, School of Public Health, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of South Carolina, Columbia SC 29208.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A recently suggested revision of Efron's bootstrap algorithm for small bivariate samples discards bootstrap samples having fewer than 3 distinct points in order to prevent degeneracies in Pearson's r. Examples are given showing that this approach may severely underestimate the variance of sample moments when sample sizes are very small.

Type
Notes And Comments
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 51 , Issue 4 , December 1986 , pp. 603 - 605
Copyright
Copyright © 1986 The Psychometric Society

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.)

Footnotes

This paper should have appeared in the September 1984 issue, however, due to some unknown reason the final stages of the publication process were not completed. We regret any inconvenience to the authors and our readers.—Editors.

This research was supported by NIMH grant number 37188.

References

Dolker, M., Halperin, S., Divgi, D. R. (1982). Problems with bootstrapping Pearson correlations in very small bivariate samples. Psychometrika, 47, 529–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Effron, B. (1979). Bootstrap methods: another look at the jackknife. The Annals of Statistics, 7, 1–26.Google Scholar