1985
DOI: 10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(85)81028-6
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Robustness of the Restricted Maximum Likelihood Estimator Derived Under Normality as Applied to Data with Skewed Distributions

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
24
0
1

Year Published

1993
1993
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 37 publications
(26 citation statements)
references
References 6 publications
1
24
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Boldman and Freeman (1990) showed that log transformation of milk yield records did not affect heritability estimates. Although REML is expected to be robust to deviations from normality (Banks et al 1985), the difference in heritability estimates obtained in the present study after transformation suggest that one of the assumptions for applying the REML approach, i.e. random classes and samples within each class to be normally distributed, was violated.…”
Section: Parameter Estimates For Milk Yieldmentioning
confidence: 67%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Boldman and Freeman (1990) showed that log transformation of milk yield records did not affect heritability estimates. Although REML is expected to be robust to deviations from normality (Banks et al 1985), the difference in heritability estimates obtained in the present study after transformation suggest that one of the assumptions for applying the REML approach, i.e. random classes and samples within each class to be normally distributed, was violated.…”
Section: Parameter Estimates For Milk Yieldmentioning
confidence: 67%
“…The REML approach, however, assumes that random classes and samples within each class are normally distributed. Deviations from a normal distribution increase the error variance estimates and in consequence the functions of variance components are biased (Banks et al 1985). Logarithmic or BC transformation are usually employed when dealing with unbalanced data to overcome non-normal fitting of the data (Strabel and Szwaczkowski 1997) and heterogeneity of variances between groups (Everett and Keown 1984;Boldman and Freeman 1990;Vissher et al 1991).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the model, total rust incidence (RUST), stem rust incidence (STEM), and height-dbh ratio (HDR) were analyzed without transformation, because evidence shows that REML estimates are robust to violations of normality (BANKS et al, 1985;WESTFALL, 1987).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The optimal transformation parameter t, to fulfill the same normality condition, was not a constant over time. Nevertheless, Banks et al [3] reported that REML is robust and they verified this robustness even for slight skewness. Therefore, in the present analysis, in order to avoid the scale diversity due to different transformation parameters, we used the same …”
Section: Data Distribution and Transformationmentioning
confidence: 99%