Table 2.
Simulation results for θX, true value is 2.00; relative efficiencies are calculated with respect to the hybrid design.
| x ∈ (0.2,0.8) | x ∈ (0.4,0.6) | x ∈ (0.2,0.8) | x ∈ (0.2,0.8) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n = 20 | n = 20 | n = 50 | n = 10 | |||||
| Est. (% Bias) | Rel Eff | Est. (% Bias) | Rel Eff | Est. (% Bias) | Rel Eff | Est. (% Bias) | Rel Eff | |
| Ecological | 2.02 (1.2) | 59.4 | 2.27 (13.4) | 17.1 | 2.03 (1.6) | 38.5 | 2.03 (1.3) | 78.6 |
| LR1 | 2.15 (7.4) | 14.5 | 2.33 (16.6) | 22.1 | 2.07 (3.5) | 26.9 | 2.35 (17.5) | 6.7 |
| Two-Phase | 2.05 (2.7) | 23.8 | 2.13 (6.5) | 35.8 | 2.04 (1.7) | 38.5 | 2.11 (5.7) | 14.3 |
| FSCC2 | 2.02 (1.2) | 38.2 | 2.09 (4.5) | 73.2 | 2.02 (1.0) | 57.1 | 2.07 (3.7) | 20.4 |
| Hybrid | 2.01 (0.6) | 100.0 | 2.08 (3.8) | 100.0 | 2.02 (0.8) | 100.0 | 2.02 (1.1) | 100.0 |
1
Logistic Regression,
2
Finite Sample Case Control.
Common baseline odds assumed.