Author:
Diniz Carlos Alberto Ribeiro,Pires Rubiane Maria,Paraíba Carolina Costa Mota,Ferreira Paulo Henrique
Abstract
This paper considers a frequentist perspective to deal with the class of correlated binomial regression models (Pires & Diniz, 2012), thus providing a new approach to analyze correlated binary response variables. Model parameters are estimated by direct maximization of the log-likelihood function. We also consider a diagnostic analysis under the correlated binomial regression model setup, which is performed considering residuals based on predictive values and deviance residuals (Cook & Weisberg, 1982) to check for model assumptions, and global in˛uence measure based on case-deletion (Cook, 1977) to detect in˛uential observations. Moreover, a sensitivity analysis is carried out to detect possible in˛uential observations that could a˙ect the inferential results. This is done using local in˛uence metrics (Cook, 1986) with case-weight, response, and covariate perturbation schemes. A simulation study is conducted to assess the frequentist properties of model parameter estimates and check the performance of the considered diagnostic metrics under the correlated binomial regression model. A data set on high-cost claims made to a private health care provider in Brazil is analyzed to illustrate the proposed methodology.
Publisher
Universidad Nacional de Colombia
Subject
Statistics and Probability
Reference22 articles.
1. Agresti, A. (2015), Foundations of Linear and Generalized Linear Models, Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics, rst edn, Wiley, New Jersey.
2. Akaike, H. (1974), 'A new look at the statistical model identification', IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 19(6), 716-723.
3. Altham, P. M. E. (1978), 'Two generalizations of the binomial distribution', Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series C 27(2), 162-167.
4. Cook, R. D. (1977), 'Detection of influential observations in linear regression', Technometrics 19(1), 15-18.
5. Cook, R. D. (1986), 'Assessment of local influence', Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological) 48(2), 133-169.