Regression dilution, also known as regression attenuation, is the biasing of the linear regression slope towards zero (the underestimation of its absolute value), caused by errors in the independent variable. Consider fitting a straight line for the relationship of an outcome variable y to a predictor variable x, and estimating the slope of the line. Statistical variability, measurement error or random noise in the y variable causes uncertainty in the estimated slope, but not bias: on average, the procedure calculates the right slope. However, variability, measurement error or random noise in the x variable causes bias in the estimated slope (as well as imprecision). The greater the variance in the x measurement, the closer the estimated slope must approach zero instead of the true value.
It may seem counter-intuitive that noise in the predictor variable x induces a bias, but noise in the outcome variable y does not. Recall that linear regression is not symmetric: the line of best fit for predicting y from x (the usual linear regression) is not the same as the line of best fit for predicting x from y.
Slope correction Regression slope and other regression coefficients can be disattenuated as follows.
The case of a fixed x variable The case that x is fixed, but measured with noise, is known as the functional model or functional relationship. It can be corrected using total least squares and errors-in-variables models in general.
The case of a randomly distributed x variable The case that the x variable arises randomly is known as the structural model or structural relationship. For example, in a medical study patients are recruited as a sample from a population, and their characteristics such as blood pressure may be viewed as arising from a random sample. Under certain assumptions (typically, normal distribution assumptions) there is a known ratio between the true slope, and the expected estimated slope. Frost and Thompson (2000) review several methods for estimating this ratio and hence correcting the estimated slope. The term regression dilution ratio, although not defined in quite the same way by all authors, is used for this general approach, in which the usual linear regression is fitted, and then a correction applied. The reply to Frost & Thompson by Longford (2001) refers the reader to other methods, expanding the regression model to acknowledge the variability in the x variable, so that no bias arises. Fuller (1987) is one of the standard references for assessing and correcting for regression dilution. Hughes (1993) shows that the regression dilution ratio methods apply approximately in survival models. Rosner (1992) shows that the ratio methods apply approximately to logistic regression models. Carroll et al. (1995) give more detail on regression dilution in nonlinear models, presenting the regression dilution ratio methods as the simplest case of regression calibration methods, in which additional covariates may also be incorporated. In general, methods for the structural model require some estimate of the variability of the x variable. This will require repeated measurements of the x variable in the same individuals, either in a sub-study of the main data set, or in a separate data set. Without this information it will not be possible to make a correction.
Multiple x variables The case of multiple predictor variables subject to variability (possibly correlated) has been well-studied for linear regression, and for some non-linear regression models. Other non-linear models, such as proportional hazards models for survival analysis, have been considered only with a single predictor subject to variability.
Correlation correction Charles Spearman developed in 1904 a procedure for correcting correlations for regression dilution, i.e., to "rid a correlation coefficient from the weakening effect of measurement error". In measurement and statistics, the procedure is also called correlation disattenuation or the disattenuation of correlation. The correction assures that the Pearson correlation coefficient across data units (for example, people) between two sets of variables is estimated in a manner that accounts for error contained within the measurement of those variables.
Formulation Let β {\displaystyle \beta } and θ {\displaystyle \theta } be the true values of two attributes of some person or statistical unit. These values are variables by virtue of the assumption that they differ for different statistical units in the population. Let β ^ {\displaystyle {\hat {\beta }}} and θ ^ {\displaystyle {\hat {\theta }}} be estimates of β {\displaystyle \beta } and θ {\displaystyle \theta } derived either directly by observation-with-error or from application of a measurement model, such as the Rasch model. Also, let
β ^ = β + ϵ β , θ ^ = θ + ϵ θ , {\displaystyle {\hat {\beta }}=\beta +\epsilon _{\beta },\quad \quad {\hat {\theta }}=\theta +\epsilon _{\theta },}
… excerpt ends here. Continue reading the full article.
