Access

You are not currently logged in.

Access your personal account or get JSTOR access through your library or other institution:

login

Log in to your personal account or through your institution.

If you need an accessible version of this item please contact JSTOR User Support

Estimating Trend Precision and Power to Detect Trends across Grouped Count Data

Brian R. Gray and Michele M. Burlew
Ecology
Vol. 88, No. 9 (Sep., 2007), pp. 2364-2372
Published by: Wiley
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27651374
Page Count: 9
  • Download ($42.00)
  • Cite this Item
If you need an accessible version of this item please contact JSTOR User Support
Estimating Trend Precision and Power to Detect Trends across Grouped Count Data
Preview not available

Abstract

Ecologists commonly use grouped or clustered count data to estimate temporal trends in counts, abundance indices, or abundance. For example, the U.S. Breeding Bird Survey data represent multiple counts of birds from within each of multiple, spatially defined routes. Despite a reliance on grouped counts, analytical methods for prospectively estimating precision of trend estimates or statistical power to detect trends that explicitly acknowledge the characteristics of grouped count data are undescribed. These characteristics include the fact that the sampling variance is an increasing function of the mean, and that sampling and group-level variance estimates are generally estimated on different scales (the sampling and log scales, respectively). We address these issues for repeated sampling of a single population using an analytical approach that has the flavor of a generalized linear mixed model, specifically that of a negative binomial-distributed count variable with random group effects. The count mean, including grand intercept, trend, and random group effects, is modeled linearly on the log scale, while sampling variance of the mean is estimated on the log scale via the delta method. Results compared favorably with those derived using Monte Carlo simulations. For example, at trend = 5% per temporal unit, differences in standard errors and in power were modest relative to those estimated by simulation (≤|11|% and ≤|16|%, respectively), with relative differences among power estimates decreasing to ≤|7|% when power estimated by simulations was ≥0.50. Similar findings were obtained using data from nine surveys of fingernail clams in the Mississippi River. The proposed method is suggested (1) where simulations are not practical and relative precision or power is desired, or (2) when multiple precision or power calculations are required and where the accuracy of a fraction of those calculations will be confirmed using simulations.

Page Thumbnails

  • Thumbnail: Page 
2364
    2364
  • Thumbnail: Page 
2365
    2365
  • Thumbnail: Page 
2366
    2366
  • Thumbnail: Page 
2367
    2367
  • Thumbnail: Page 
2368
    2368
  • Thumbnail: Page 
2369
    2369
  • Thumbnail: Page 
2370
    2370
  • Thumbnail: Page 
2371
    2371
  • Thumbnail: Page 
2372
    2372