Confidence intervals for the mean

  • Dekking F
  • Kraaikamp C
  • Lopuhaä H
  • et al.
N/ACitations
Citations of this article
10Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

In this paper we conduct a simulation study to evaluate coverage error, interval width and relative bias of four main methods for the construction of confidence intervals of log-normal means: the naive method; Cox’s method; a conservative method; and a parametric bootstrap method. The simulation study finds that the naive method is inappropriate, that Cox’s method has the smallest coverage error for moderate and large sample sizes, and that the bootstrap method has the smallest coverage error for small sample sizes. In addition, Cox’s method produces the smallest interval width among the three appropriate methods. We also apply the four methods to a real data set to contrast the differences.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Dekking, F. M., Kraaikamp, C., Lopuhaä, H. P., & Meester, L. E. (2005). Confidence intervals for the mean (pp. 341–360). https://doi.org/10.1007/1-84628-168-7_23

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free