Consider the one-factor nested components-of-variance model Yij = A + ai + eij, where a2 and eij are jointly independent normal random variables with zero means and variances 2 and a2, respectively, for i = 1, 2, . .. , I; and j = 1, 2, . . ., J. The confidence interval on the among variance component a2 is of interest to the investigators. Except for an artificial method (see Healy, 1961) that uses a set of random numbers which is of no use in practical situations, an exact-size confidence interval on a 2 has not yet been derived. Several approximate procedures are available for obtaining a confidence interval on 2. Satterthwaite (1946) approximates the distribution of the estimate of a linear combination of variances by a chi-squared distribution times a constant. Satterthwaite urges caution in using the method when any of the coefficients of the linear combination are negative, as is the case when estimating a2. Gaylor and Hopper (1969) provide a criterion based on the F-statistics from the ANOVA table for determining when Satterthwaite's procedure may be safely used for setting confidence limits on the among variance components. Welch (1956) offers a series approximation, using the Cornish-Fisher (1937) expansion, for setting approximate confidence intervals on the linear combinations of several variances. Another approximation is given by Moriguti (1954) and repeated by Bulmer (1957). They derive a confidence interval on a2 by assuming the confidence limit is of certain form and solving for it by forcing the confidence coefficient to be exact under certain limiting conditions. Williams (1962) constructed an approximate confidence interval with a guaranteed lower confidence coefficient of 1 2a by a geometrical projection. This confidence interval is identical to the one proposed by Tukey (1951). Howe (1974) also derives confidence limits on a2 through a modified Cornish-Fisher expansion. Boardman (1974) presents a simulation study that investigates the actual probability coverage of the Satterthwaite, Welch, Moriguti-Bulmer, and Tukey-Williams intervals. The results of the study show that the Moriguti-Bulmer and Tukey-Williams procedures give adequate coverage at the nominal 95% confidence coefficient. Both Satterthwaite and Welch procedures behaved poorly in the simulation, giving inadequate coverage at the nominal 95% level. Although Howe's interval was not included in the study, the method
Read full abstract