4.5 Article

Improving the correlation structure selection approach for generalized estimating equations and balanced longitudinal data

Journal

STATISTICS IN MEDICINE
Volume 33, Issue 13, Pages 2222-2237

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/sim.6106

Keywords

correlation structure; efficiency; empirical covariance matrix; generalized estimating equations; unstructured

Funding

  1. National Institute on Aging [R01 AG019241]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Generalized estimating equations are commonly used to analyze correlated data. Choosing an appropriate working correlation structure for the data is important, as the efficiency of generalized estimating equations depends on how closely this structure approximates the true structure. Therefore, most studies have proposed multiple criteria to select the working correlation structure, although some of these criteria have neither been compared nor extensively studied. To ease the correlation selection process, we propose a criterion that utilizes the trace of the empirical covariance matrix. Furthermore, use of the unstructured working correlation can potentially improve estimation precision and therefore should be considered when data arise from a balanced longitudinal study. However, most previous studies have not allowed the unstructured working correlation to be selected as it estimates more nuisance correlation parameters than other structures such as AR-1 or exchangeable. Therefore, we propose appropriate penalties for the selection criteria that can be imposed upon the unstructured working correlation. Via simulation in multiple scenarios and in application to a longitudinal study, we show that the trace of the empirical covariance matrix works very well relative to existing criteria. We further show that allowing criteria to select the unstructured working correlation when utilizing the penalties can substantially improve parameter estimation. Copyright (c) 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available