It is well known that measurement error in the covariates of regression models generally causes bias in parameter estimates. Correction for such biases requires information concerning the measurement error, which is often in the form of internal validation or replication data. Regression calibration (RC) is a popular approach to correct for covariate measurement error, which involves predicting the true covariate using error-prone measurements. Likelihood methods have previously been proposed as an alternative approach to estimate the parameters in models affected by measurement error, but have been relatively infrequently employed in medical statistics and epidemiology, partly because of computational complexity and concerns regarding robustness to distributional assumptions. We show how a standard random-intercepts model can be used to obtain maximum likelihood (ML) estimates when the outcome model is linear or logistic regression under certain normality assumptions, when internal error-prone replicate measurements are available. Through simulations we show that for linear regression, ML gives more efficient estimates than RC, although the gain is typically small. Furthermore, we show that RC and ML estimates remain consistent even when the normality assumptions are violated. For logistic regression, our implementation of ML is consistent if the true covariate is conditionally normal given the outcome, in contrast to RC. In simulations, this ML estimator showed less bias in situations where RC gives non-negligible biases. Our proposal makes the ML approach to dealing with covariate measurement error more accessible to researchers, which we hope will improve its viability as a useful alternative to methods such as RC.
Search
Reviews
[Write a review of this article]
Find related articles from these CiteULike users
