Cultural advice

The Australian National University acknowledges, celebrates and pays our respects to the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people of the Canberra region and to all First Nations Australians on whose traditional lands we meet and work, and whose cultures are among the oldest continuing cultures in human history.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are advised that ANU Library collections may include images, names, voices, and other representations of deceased persons.

Material in the collection may contain terms, language or views that reflect the period in which the item was created and may be considered inappropriate today.

A Comparison of two Robust Estimation Methods for Business Surveys

dc.contributor.authorClark, Robert
dc.contributor.authorKokic, Philip N.
dc.contributor.authorSmith, Paul A.
dc.date.accessioned2021-04-27T05:06:47Z
dc.date.issued2017
dc.date.updated2023-03-19T07:16:15Z
dc.description.abstractTwo alternative robust estimation methods often employed by National Statistical Institutes inbusiness surveys are two-sided M-estimation and one-sided Winsorisation, which can be regardedas an approximate implementation of one-sided M-estimation. We review these methods andevaluate their performance in a simulation of a repeated rotating business survey based on datafrom the Retail Sales Inquiry conducted by the UK Office for National Statistics. One-sidedand two-sided M-estimation are found to have very similar performance, with a slight edge forthe former for positive variables. Both methods considerably improve both level and movementestimators. Approaches for setting tuning parameters are evaluated for both methods, and this isa more important issue than the difference between the two approaches. M-estimation works bestwhen tuning parameters are estimated using historical data but is serviceable even when only livedata is available. Confidence interval coverage is much improved by the use of a bootstrap percentileconfidence interval.
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdfen_AU
dc.identifier.issn0306-7734en_AU
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1885/231034
dc.language.isoen_AUen_AU
dc.publisherInternational Statistical Institute
dc.rights© 2016 The Authors. International Statistical Review © 2016 International Statistical Institute. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd
dc.sourceInternational Statistical Review
dc.subjectBootstrap
dc.subjectmean squared error
dc.subjectM-estimation
dc.subjectmovement estimation
dc.subjectinfluential values
dc.subjectoutliers
dc.subjectrobustness
dc.subjectsample survey
dc.subjectWinsorisation
dc.subjectWinsorization
dc.titleA Comparison of two Robust Estimation Methods for Business Surveys
dc.typeJournal article
local.bibliographicCitation.issue2en_AU
local.bibliographicCitation.lastpage289en_AU
local.bibliographicCitation.startpage270en_AU
local.contributor.affiliationClark, Robert, Administrative Portfolio, ANUen_AU
local.contributor.affiliationKokic, Philip N., CSIROen_AU
local.contributor.affiliationSmith, Paul A., Southampton Statistical Sciences Research Institute (S3RI), University of Southamptonen_AU
local.contributor.authoruidClark, Robert, u3775513en_AU
local.description.embargo2099-12-31
local.description.notesImported from ARIESen_AU
local.identifier.absfor010401 - Applied Statisticsen_AU
local.identifier.absfor010405 - Statistical Theoryen_AU
local.identifier.absseo970101 - Expanding Knowledge in the Mathematical Sciencesen_AU
local.identifier.ariespublicationu5586678xPUB7en_AU
local.identifier.citationvolume85en_AU
local.identifier.doi10.1111/insr.12177en_AU
local.identifier.scopusID2-s2.0-84978394330
local.identifier.thomsonIDWOS:000407276800005
local.publisher.urlhttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1751-5823/en_AU
local.type.statusPublished Versionen_AU

Downloads

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
01_Clark_A_Comparison_of_two_Robust_2017.pdf
Size:
218.72 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format