Comments on the paper “Bias-adjustment and calibration of jackknife variance estimator in the presence of non-response”

Singh and Arnab (2010) presented a bias adjustment to the jackknife variance estimator of Rao and Sitter (1995) in the presence of non-response. In their paper, they obtained a second-order approximation of the bias of the Rao-Sitter variance estimator and then proposed a bias-adjusted estimator based on this approximation. To compare their proposed variance estimator to various other variance estimators, they performed a simulation study and showed that their variance estimator is superior to the Rao-Sitter variance estimator. In fact they showed that the Rao-Sitter variance estimator suffers from severe underestimation. These results contradict those in the literature, which indicate that the Rao-Sitter variance estimator suffers from a positive bias if the sampling fractions are not negligible; see Rao and Sitter (1995), Lee et al. (1995) and Haziza and Picard (2011). Because of this contradiction, we felt that a further investigation was warranted. In this paper, we attempt to recreate the results of Singh and Arnab (2010) and, in fact, show that their second order approximation to the bias of the Rao-Sitter variance estimator is incorrect and that their simulation results are also questionable.