International Statistical Review

Stratification of Skewed Populations: A review

Jane M. Horgan

Full-text: Access denied (no subscription detected)

We're sorry, but we are unable to provide you with the full text of this article because we are not able to identify you as a subscriber. If you have a personal subscription to this journal, then please login. If you are already logged in, then you may need to update your profile to register your subscription. Read more about accessing full-text

Abstract

When Dalenius provided a set of equations for the determination of stratum boundaries of a single auxiliary variable, that minimise the variance of the Horvitz-Thompson estimator of the mean or total under Neyman allocation for a fixed sample size, he pointed out that, though mathematically correct, those equations are troublesome to solve. Since then there has been a proliferation of approximations of an iterative nature, or otherwise cumbersome, tendered for this problem; many of these approximations assume a uniform distribution within strata, and, in the case of skewed populations, that all strata have the same relative variation. What seems to have been missed is that the combination of these two assumptions offers a much simpler and equally effective method of subdivision for skewed populations; take the stratum boundaries in geometric progression.

Article information

Source
Internat. Statist. Rev., Volume 74, Number 1 (2006), 67-76.

Dates
First available in Project Euclid: 29 March 2006

Permanent link to this document
https://projecteuclid.org/euclid.isr/1143654387

Zentralblatt MATH identifier
1142.62004

Keywords
Coefficient of variation Efficiency Geometric progression Stratification methods Uniform distribution

Citation

Horgan, Jane M. Stratification of Skewed Populations: A review. Internat. Statist. Rev. 74 (2006), no. 1, 67--76. https://projecteuclid.org/euclid.isr/1143654387


Export citation

References

  • [1] Cochran, W.G. (1961). Comparison of methods for determining stratum boundaries. {\sl Bulletin of the International Statistical Institute}, 38, 2, 345-358.
  • [2] Cochran, W.G. (1977). {\sl Sampling Techniques,} 3rd ed. New York: Wiley.
  • [3] Dalenius, T. (1950). The problem of optimum stratification. {\sl Skandinavisk Aktuarietidskrift}, pp. 203-213.
  • [4] Dalenius, T. & Hodges, J.L. (1957). The choice of stratification points. {\sl Skandinavisk Aktuarietidskrift}, pp. 198-203.
  • [5] Dalenius, T. & Hodges, J.L. (1959). Minimum variance stratification. {\sl Journal of the American Statistical Association}, 54, 88-101.
  • [6] Detlefsen, R. & Veum, L. (1991). Design issues for the retail trade survey in the U.S. Bureau of the Census. {\sl Proceedings of the Research Method Section, American Statistical Association}, pp. 214-219.
  • [7] Ekman, G. (1959). An approximation useful in univariate stratification. {\sl The Annals of Mathematical Statistics}, 30, 219-229.
  • [8] Gunning, P. & Horgan, J.M. (2004). A new algorithm for the construction of stratum boundaries in skewed populations. {\sl Survey Methodology}, 30, 159-166.
  • [9] Gunning, P., Horgan, J.M. & Keogh, G. (2006). Efficient Pareto stratification. {\sl The Mathematical Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy} (in press).
  • [10] Gunning, P., Horgan, J.M. & Yancey, W. (2004). Geometric stratification of accounting data. {\sl J. de Contaduria y Administration}, 214, septiembre-diciembre.
  • [11] Hedlin, D. (2000). A procedure for stratification by an extended Ekman rule. {\sl Journal of Official Statistics}, 16, 15-29.
  • [12] Hidiroglou, M.A. (1994). Sampling and estimation for establishment surveys: Stumbling blocks and progress. {\sl Proceedings of Survey Research Methods Section, American Statistical Association}, 1, 153-162.
  • [13] Hidiroglou, M.A. & Srinath, K.P. (1993). Problems associated with designing sub annual surveys. {\sl Journal of Business and Economic Statistics}, 11, 397-405.
  • [14] Lavellée, P. & Hidiroglou, M. (1988). On the stratification of skewed populations. {\sl Survey Methodology}, 14, 33-43.
  • [15] Neyman, J. (1934). On the two different aspects of the representative method: The method of stratified sampling and the method of purposive selection. {\sl Journal of the Royal Statistics Society,} 97, 558-606.
  • [16] Rivest, L.P. (2002). A generalization of the Lavellée-Hidiroglou algorithm for stratification in business surveys. {\sl Survey Methodology}, 28, 191-198.
  • [17] Sethi, V.K. (1963). A note on the optimum stratification of populations for estimating the population means. {\sl Australian Journal of Statistics}, 5, 20-33.
  • [18] Sigman, R. & Monsour, N. (1995). Selecting samples from list frame of business, In {\sl Business Survey Methods}, Eds. B. Cox, D. Binder, N. Chinappa, A. Christianson, M. Colledge & P. Kott. New York: Wiley.
  • [19] Singh, R. (1971). Approximately optimum stratification on the auxiliary variable. {\sl Journal of American Statistical Society}, 66, 829-833.
  • [20] Slanta, J. & Krenzke, T. (1994). Applying the Lavallée and Hidiroglou method to obtain stratification boundaries for the Census Bureau's Annual Capital Expenditure Survey. {\sl Proceedings of the Survey Research Methods Section, American Statistical Association,} pp. 693-698.
  • [21] Slanta, J. & Krenzke, T. (1996). Applying the Lavallée and Hidiroglou method to obtain stratification boundaries for the Census Bureau's annual Capital Expenditure Survey. {\sl Survey Methodology}, 22, 65-75. \pagebreak
  • [22] Sweet, E.M. & Sigman, R.S. (1995). Evaluation of model-assisted procedures for stratifying skewed populations using auxiliary data. {\sl Proceedings of the Survey Research Methods Section, American Statistical Association}, 1, 491-496.
  • [23] Unnithan, V.K.G. (1978). The minimum variance boundary points of stratification. {\sl Sankhya}, 40(C), 60-71.
  • [24] Unnithan, V.K.G. & Nair, N.U. (1995). Minimum variance stratification. {\sl Communications in Statistics - Simulation and Computation}, 24(1), 275-284.