This study aims to compare the efficacy of three ratio estimators for estimating the population ratio in simple random sampling without replacement (SRSWOR). The estimators under consideration are a customary ratio estimator (~R1), a ratio estimator based on a transformed mean estimator (~R2) introduced by Onyeka et al. [1], and a regression-type estimator (~R3) proposed by Onyeka et al. [2]. We assess the performance of these estimators across three distributions (bivariate normal, bivariate Poisson log-normal, and bivariate Cauchy) while varying both correlation coefficients and sample sizes, utilizing Mean Square Error (MSE) and Percent Relative Efficiency (PRE) as evaluation criteria. The results indicate that for a bivariate normal distribution, the ~R1 and ~R2 estimators consistently outperformed the ~R3 estimator across all sample sizes and correlation coefficients. The ~R2 estimator demonstrated superiority with very small sample sizes, while ~R1 exhibited better performance in small sample sizes. The ~R2 estimator remained reliable for moderately sized samples, demonstrating consistent efficiency. In large samples, ~R2 maintained its performance advantage, except in weak correlation coefficients, where ~R1 proved superior. For a bivariate Poisson lognormal distribution, both ~R2 and ~R3 performed significantly better than ~R1 for very small sample sizes, irrespective of correlation direction and strength. For moderately sized samples, ~R2 and ~R3 consistently excelled, with ~R2 leading in cases with positive correlation coefficients. For large sample sizes with negative correlation coefficients, both ~R2 and ~R3 were comparable effective and significantly better than ~R1. Conversely, with positive correlation coefficients, the ~R1 estimator significantly outperformed both ~R2 and ~R3. In a bivariate Cauchy distribution, the ~R1 estimator demonstrated notable and consistent superiority over the ~R2 and ~R3 estimators across all sample sizes and correlation coefficients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ounrittichai et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: