On the assumption of bivariate normality in selection models

Epidemiology

Volumn 26, Issue 2, 2015, Pages 229-237

  McGovern, Mark E ^a,b   Bärnighausen, Till ^b,c   Marra, Giampiero ^d   Radice, Rosalba ^e  

^a HARVARD CENTER FOR POPULATION AND DEVELOPMENT STUDIES   (United States)

^b HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF KWAZULU NATAL   (South Africa)

^d UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^e UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; HEALTH SURVEY; HIV TEST; HUMAN; HUMAN IMMUNODEFICIENCY VIRUS PREVALENCE; MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD METHOD; MORTALITY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SAMPLING; SELECTION BIAS; SIMULATION; ZAMBIA; ADULT; COMPUTER SIMULATION; FEMALE; HIV INFECTIONS; MALE; NORMAL DISTRIBUTION; PREVALENCE; STATISTICAL MODEL;

ADULT; COMPUTER SIMULATION; FEMALE; HIV INFECTIONS; HUMANS; MALE; MODELS, STATISTICAL; NORMAL DISTRIBUTION; PREVALENCE; SELECTION BIAS; ZAMBIA;

EID: 84923991671     PISSN: 10443983     EISSN: 15315487     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/EDE.0000000000000218     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. G ersovitz M. HIV testing: principles and practice. World Bank Res Obs. 2011; 26: 1-41.
2. Boerma JT, Ghys PD, Walker N. Estimates of HIV-1 prevalence from national population-based surveys as a new gold standard. Lancet. 2003; 362: 1929-1931.
3. Hogan DR, Salomon JA, Canning D, et al. National HIV prevalence estimates for sub-Saharan Africa: controlling selection bias with Heckmantype selection models. Sex Transm Infect. 2012; 88: i17-i23.
4. Sterck O. Why are testing rates so low in Sub-Saharan Africa? Misconceptions and strategic behaviors. Forum Health Econ Policy. 2013; 16: 219-257.
5. Marston M, Harriss K, Slaymaker E. Non-response bias in estimates of HIV prevalence due to the mobility of absentees in national population- based surveys: a study of nine national surveys. Sex Transm Infect. 2008; 84 (suppl 1): i71-i77.
6. Mishra V, Barrere B, Hong R, Khan S. Evaluation of bias in HIV seroprevalence estimates from national household surveys. Sex Transm Infect. 2008; 84 (suppl 1): i63-i70.
7. Bärnighausen T, Tanser F, Malaza A, Herbst K, Newell ML. HIV status and participation in HIV surveillance in the era of antiretroviral treatment: a study of linked population-based and clinical data in rural South Africa. Trop Med Int Health. 2012; 17: e103-e110.
8. Floyd S, Molesworth A, Dube A, et al. Underestimation of HIV prevalence in surveys when some people already know their status, and ways to reduce the bias. AIDS. 2013; 27: 233-242.
9. Obare F. Nonresponse in repeat population-based voluntary counseling and testing for HIV in rural Malawi. Demography. 2010; 47: 651-665.
10. R eniers G, Eaton J. Refusal bias in HIV prevalence estimates from nationally representative seroprevalence surveys. AIDS. 2009; 23: 621-629.
11. Kranzer K, McGrath N, Saul J, et al. Individual, household and community factors associated with HIV test refusal in rural Malawi. Trop Med Int Health. 2008; 13: 1341-1350.
12. C onniffe D, O'Neill D. Efficient probit estimation with partially missing covariates. Adv Econom. 2011; 27: 209-245.
13. Donders AR, van der Heijden GJ, Stijnen T, Moons KG. Review: a gentle introduction to imputation of missing values. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006; 59: 1087-1091.
14. Heckman JJ. Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica. 1979; 47: 153-161.
15. Vella F. Estimating models with sample selection bias: a survey. J Hum Resour. 1998; 33: 127-169.
16. O'Muircheartaigh C, Campanelli P. The relative impact of interviewer effects and sample design effects on survey precision. J R Stat Soc Ser A. 1998; 161: 63-77.
17. Bärnighausen T, Bor J, Wandira-Kazibwe S, Canning D. Interviewer identity as exclusion restriction in epidemiology. Epidemiology. 2011; 22: 446.
18. Bärnighausen T, Bor J, Wandira-Kazibwe S, Canning D. Correcting HIV prevalence estimates for survey nonparticipation using Heckman-type selection models. Epidemiology. 2011; 22: 27-35.
19. McGovern ME, Bärnighausen T, Salomon JA, Canning D. Using interviewer random effects to calculate unbiased HIV prevalence estimates in the presence of non-response: a Bayesian approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology. 2015; In press.
20. Janssens W, van der Gaag J, de Wit TFR, Tanovia Z. Refusal bias in the estimation of HIV prevalence. Demography. 2014; 51: 1131-1157.
21. R eniers G, Araya T, Berhane Y, Davey G, Sanders EJ. Implications of the HIV testing protocol for refusal bias in seroprevalence surveys. BMC Public Health. 2009; 9: 1-9.
22. A rpino B, Cao ED, Peracchi F. Using panel data for partial identification of human immunodeficiency virus prevalence when infection status is missing not at random. J R Ser A 2013; 177: 587-606.
23. G eneletti S, Mason A, Best N. Adjusting for selection effects in epidemiologic studies: why sensitivity analysis is the only "solution". Epidemiology. 2011; 22: 36-39.
24. Puhani P. The Heckman correction for sample selection and its critique. J Econ Surv. 2000; 14: 53-68.
25. Vytlacil E. Independence, monotonicity, and latent index models: an equivalence result. Econometrica. 2002; 70: 331-341.
26. De Luca G. SNP and SML estimation of univariate and bivariate binarychoice models. Stata J. 2008; 8: 190-220.
27. C lark SJ, Houle B. Evaluation of Heckman selection model method for correcting estimates of HIV prevalence from sample surveys via realistic simulation. Center for Statistics and the Social Sciences University of Washington Working Paper No. 120. 2012.
28. Dancer D, Rammohan A, Smith MD. Infant mortality and child nutrition in Bangladesh. Health Econ. 2008; 17: 1015-1035.
29. Murteira JM, Lourenço ?D. Health care utilization and self-assessed health: specification of bivariate models using copulas. Empir Econ. 2011; 41: 447-472.
30. Prieger JE. A flexible parametric selection model for non-normal data with application to health care usage. J Appl Econom. 2002; 17: 367-392.
31. Winkelmann R. Copula bivariate probit models: with an application to medical expenditures. Health Econ. 2012; 21: 1444-1455.
32. Smith MD. Modelling sample selection using Archimedean copulas. Econom J. 2003; 6: 99-123.
33. R adice R, Marra G, Wojtys M. Copula regression spline models for binary outcomes. University College London Research Report. 2013.
34. Dubin JA, Rivers D. Selection bias in linear regression, logit and probit models. Sociol Methods Res. 1989; 18: 360-390.
35. Van de Ven WP, Van Praag B. The demand for deductibles in private health insurance: a probit model with sample selection. J Econom. 1981; 17: 229-252.
36. Madden D. Sample selection versus two-part models revisited: the case of female smoking and drinking. J Health Econ. 2008; 27: 300-307.
37. T rivedi PK, Zimmer DM. Copula modeling: an introduction for practitioners. Found Trends Econom. 2007; 1: 1-111.
38. Brechmann EC, Schepsmeier U. Modeling dependence with C-and D-vine copulas: the R-package CDVine. J Stat Softw. 2012; 52: 1-27.
39. L umley T. Analysis of complex survey samples. J Stat Softw. 2004; 9: 1-19.
40. L eung SF, Yu S. On the choice between sample selection and two-part models. J Econom. 1996; 72: 197-229.
41. C orsi DJ, Neuman M, Finlay JE, Subramanian S. Demographic and health surveys: a profile. Int J Epidemiol. 2012; 41: 1602-1613.
42. Marra G, Radice R. SemiParBIVProbit: semiparametric bivariate probit modelling. R Package, Version 3.2-12.1. 2014.
43. Dziak J, Li R. Variable selection with penalized generalized estimating equations. Methodology Center, Pennsylvania State University, Technical Report 06-78. 2006.
44. Zaidi J, Grapsa E, Tanser F, Newell ML, Bärnighausen T. Dramatic increase in HIV prevalence after scale-up of antiretroviral treatment. AIDS. 2013; 27: 2301-2305.
45. A ndrews DW, Schafgans MM. Semiparametric estimation of the intercept of a sample selection model. Rev Econ Stud. 1998; 65: 497-517.
46. Schafgans M, Zinde-Walsh V. On intercept estimation in the sample selection model. Econom Theory. 2002; 18: 40-50.
47. Bhat CR, Eluru N. A copula-based approach to accommodate residential self-selection effects in travel behavior modeling. Transp Res Part B Methodol. 2009; 43: 749-765.
48. G enius M, Strazzera E. Applying the copula approach to sample selection modelling. Appl Econ. 2008; 40: 1443-1455.
49. C lark SJ, Houle B. Validation, replication, and sensitivity testing of Heckman-Type selection models to adjust estimates of HIV prevalence. PloS one. 2014; 9: e112563.
50. Marra G, Radice R. A penalized likelihood estimation approach to semiparametric sample selection binary response modeling. Electron J Stat. 2013; 7: 1432-1455.