Parameter Estimation of the Beta-Binomial Distribution: An Application Using the Sas Software
Keywords:beta-binomial distribution, regression model, data analysis
In this paper we describe the parameter estimation of the beta-binomial distribution using the procedure NLMIXED of the SAS software. The beta-binomial distribution is a discrete mixture distribution which can capture overdispersion in the data. The estimation of parameters of the beta-binomial distribution can lead to computational problems, since it does not belong to the exponential family and there are not explicit solutions for the maximum likelihood estimation. Using a real dataset, we show that the SAS software can be satisfactorily used for the estimation of the parameters. We also consider the possibility of including a covariate in the model. The SAS codes used in this paper are given in an Appendix.
Aeschbacher, H. U., Vuataz, L., Sotek, J., Stalder, R. (1977). Use of the beta-binomial distribution in dominant-lethal testing for “weak mutagenic activity” Part 1. Mutation Research/Fundamental and Molecular Mechanisms of Mutagenesis, 44(3), 369–390.
Burnham, K. P., Anderson, D. R. (2003). Model selection and inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. Springer-Verlag, New York.
Chatfield, C., Goodhardt, G. J. (1976). The beta-binomial model for consumer purchasing behaviour. In: Mathematical Models in Marketing, pp. 53–57. Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Crowder, M. J. (1978). Beta-binomial ANOVA for proportions. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series C (Applied Statistics), 27(1), 34–37.
Gange, S. J., Munoz, A., Saez, M., Alonso, J. (1996). Use of the beta-binomial distribution to model the effect of policy changes on appropriateness of hospital stays. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series C (Applied Statistics), 45(3), 371–382.
Griffiths, D. A. (1973). Maximum likelihood estimation for the beta-binomial distribution and an application to the house-hold distribution of the total number of cases of a disease. Biometrics, 29(4), 637–648.
Haseman, J. K., Kupper, L. L. (1979). Analysis of dichotomous response data from certain toxicological experiments, Biometrics, 35(1), 281–293.
Kleinman, J. C. (1978). Proportions with extraneous variance: single and independent samples. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 68(341), 46–53.
Koenig, H. G., Büssing, A. (2010). The Duke University Religion Index (DUREL): a five-item measure for use in epidemological studies. Religions, 1(1), 78–85.
Littell, R. C., Milliken, G. A., Stroup, W. W., Wolfinger, R. D., Schabenberger, O. (2006). SAS for Mixed Models. Second Edition. Cary: SAS Institute.
Martinez, E. Z., Santos-Almeida, R. G., Carvalho, A. C. D. (2012). Propriedades da Escala de Religiosidade de Duke em uma amostra de pós-graduandos. Revista de Psiquiatria Clínica, 39:(5), 180.
Morgan, B. J. T. (1992). Analysis of quantal response data. London: Chapman and Hall.
Pearson, E. S. (1925). Bayes’ theorem, examined in the light of experimental sampling. Biometrika, 17(3/4), 388–442.
Skellam, J. G. (1948). A probability distribution derived from the binomial distribution by regarding the probability of success as variable between the sets of trials. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B, 10(2),
Smith, D. M. (1983). Maximum likelihood estimation of the parameters of the beta binomial distribution. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series C (Applied Statistics), 32(2), 196–204.
Tamura, R. N., Young, S. S. (1987). A stabilized moment estimator for the beta-binomial distribution. Biometrics, 43, 813–824.
Yamamoto, E., Yanagimoto, T. (1992). Moment estimators for the beta-binomial distribution. Journal of Applied Statistics, 19(2), 273–283.
Williams, D. A. (1975). The analysis of binary responses from toxicological experiments involving reproduction and teratogenicity. Biometrics, 31(4), 949–952.
How to Cite
To access the DECLARATION AND TRANSFER OF COPYRIGHT AUTHOR’S DECLARATION AND COPYRIGHT LICENSE click here.
Ethical Guidelines for Journal Publication
The Ciência e Natura journal is committed to ensuring ethics in publication and quality of articles.
Conformance to standards of ethical behavior is therefore expected of all parties involved: Authors, Editors, Reviewers, and the Publisher.
Authors: Authors should present an objective discussion of the significance of research work as well as sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the experiments. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Review Articles should also be objective, comprehensive, and accurate accounts of the state of the art. The Authors should ensure that their work is entirely original works, and if the work and/or words of others have been used, this has been appropriately acknowledged. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Authors should not submit articles describing essentially the same research to more than one journal. The corresponding Author should ensure that there is a full consensus of all Co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication.
Editors: Editors should evaluate manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit. An Editor must not use unpublished information in the editor's own research without the express written consent of the Author. Editors should take reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.
Reviewers: Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that Authors can use them for improving the paper. Any selected Reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the Editor and excuse himself from the review process. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.