Two tests for the jackknife autocorrelation estimator rQ2 are evaluated. It is shown that a test based on the conventional approach for estimating the standard error of a jackknife estimator leads to unacceptable Type I error. A simple alternative approach leads to a muchmore satisfactory test that is recommended for N > 20.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bartlett, M. S. (1946). On the theoretical specification and sampling properties of autocorrelated time-series. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 8, 27-41.
2.
Dyer, K. , Schwartz, I. S., & Luce, S. C. (1984). A supervision program for increasing functional activities for severely handicapped students in a residential setting. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 17, 249-259.
3.
Huitema, B. E. , & McKean, J. W. (1991). Autocorrelation estimation and inference with small samples. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 291-304.
4.
Huitema, B. E. , & McKean, J. W. (1994a). Reduced-bias autocorrelation estimation: Three jackknife methods. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54, 654-665.
5.
Huitema, B. E. , & McKean, J. W. (1994b). Tests of Ho: PI = 0 for autocorrelation estimators rF and rF2. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 78, 331-336.
6.
International Mathematical and Statistical Libraries. (1989). IMSL Library 3. Houston, TX: Author.
7.
Quenouille, M. H. (1956). Notes on bias in estimation. Biometrika, 43, 353-360.
8.
Tukey, J. W. (1958). Bias and confidence in not-quite large samples [abstract]. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 29, 614.
