Approximate and Fiducial Confidence Intervals for the Difference Between Two Binomial Proportions

The problem of estimating the difference between two binomial proportions is considered. Closed-form approximate confidence intervals (CIs) and a fiducial CI for the difference between proportions are proposed. The approximate CIs are simple to compute, and they perform better than the classical Wald CI in terms of coverage probabilities and precision. Numerical studies indicate that these approximate CIs can be used safely for practical applications under a simple condition. The fiducial CI is more accurate than the approximate CIs in terms of coverage probabilities. The fiducial CIs, the Newcombe CIs, and the Miettinen–Nurminen CIs are comparable in terms of coverage probabilities and precision. The interval estimation procedures are illustrated using two examples.     

Evaluating the Performance of Simultaneous Stepwise Confidence Intervals for the Difference between two Poisson Rates

We consider the problem of simultaneously estimating Poisson rate differences via applications of the Hsu and Berger stepwise confidence interval method (termed HBM), where comparisons to a common reference group are performed. We discuss continuity-corrected confidence intervals (CIs) and investigate the HBM performance with a moment-based CI, and uncorrected and corrected for continuity Wald and Pooled confidence intervals (CIs). Using simulations, we compare nine individual CIs in terms of coverage probability and the HBM with nine intervals in terms of family-wise error rate (FWER) and overall and local power. The simulations show that these statistical properties depend highly on parameter settings.     

Approximate is Better than “Exact” for Interval Estimation of Binomial Proportions

For interval estimation of a proportion, coverage probabilities tend to be too large for “exact” confidence intervals based on inverting the binomial test and too small for the interval based on inverting the Wald large-sample normal test (i.e., sample proportion ± z-score × estimated standard error). Wilson's suggestion of inverting the related score test with null rather than estimated standard error yields coverage probabilities close to nominal confidence levels, even for very small sample sizes. The 95% score interval has similar behavior as the adjusted Wald interval obtained after adding two “successes” and two “failures” to the sample. In elementary courses, with the score and adjusted Wald methods it is unnecessary to provide students with awkward sample size guidelines.     

A new confidence interval for the difference between two binomial proportions of paired data

Motivated by a study on comparing sensitivities and specificities of two diagnostic tests in a paired design when the sample size is small, we first derived an Edgeworth expansion for the studentized difference between two binomial proportions of paired data. The Edgeworth expansion can help us understand why the usual Wald interval for the difference has poor coverage performance in the small sample size. Based on the Edgeworth expansion, we then derived a transformation based confidence interval for the difference. The new interval removes the skewness in the Edgeworth expansion; the new interval is easy to compute, and its coverage probability converges to the nominal level at a rate of O(n^−1/2). Numerical results indicate that the new interval has the average coverage probability that is very close to the nominal level on average even for sample sizes as small as 10. Numerical results also indicate this new interval has better average coverage accuracy than the best existing intervals in finite sample sizes.     

Evaluation of alternative confidence intervals to address non-inferiority through the stratified difference between proportions

The confidence interval (CI) for the difference between two proportions has been an important and active research topic, especially in the context of non-inferiority hypothesis testing. Issues concerning the Type 1 error rate, power, coverage rate and aberrations have been extensively studied for non-stratified cases. However, stratified confidence intervals are frequently used in non-inferiority trials and similar settings. In this paper, several methods for stratified confidence intervals for the difference between two proportions, including existing methods and novel extensions from unstratified CIs, are evaluated across different scenarios. When sparsity across the strata is not a concern, adding imputed observations to the stratification analysis can strengthen Type-1 error control without substantial loss of power. When sparseness of data is a concern, most of the evaluated methods fail to control Type-1 error; the modified stratified t-test CI is an exception. We recommend the modified stratified t-test CI as the most useful and flexible method across the respective scenarios; the modified stratified Wald CI may be useful in settings where sparsity is unlikely. These findings substantially contribute to the application of stratified CIs for non-inferiority testing of differences between two proportions.     

Wilson Confidence Intervals for the Two-Sample Log-Odds-Ratio in Stratified 2 × 2 Contingency Tables

Large-sample Wilson-type confidence intervals (CIs) are derived for a parameter of interest in many clinical trials situations: the log-odds-ratio, in a two-sample experiment comparing binomial success proportions, say between cases and controls. The methods cover several scenarios: (i) results embedded in a single 2 × 2 contingency table; (ii) a series of K 2 × 2 tables with common parameter; or (iii) K tables, where the parameter may change across tables under the influence of a covariate. The calculations of the Wilson CI require only simple numerical assistance, and for example are easily carried out using Excel. The main competitor, the exact CI, has two disadvantages: It requires burdensome search algorithms for the multi-table case and results in strong over-coverage associated with long confidence intervals. All the application cases are illustrated through a well-known example. A simulation study then investigates how the Wilson CI performs among several competing methods. The Wilson interval is shortest, except for very large odds ratios, while maintaining coverage similar to Wald-type intervals. An alternative to the Wald CI is the Agresti-Coull CI, calculated from the Wilson and Wald CIs, which has same length as the Wald CI but improved coverage.     

Hybrid-based confidence intervals for the ratio of two treatment means in the over-dispersed Poisson data

In many clinical trials and epidemiological studies, comparing the mean count response of an exposed group to a control group is often of interest. This type of data is often over-dispersed with respect to Poisson variation, and previous studies usually compared groups using confidence intervals (CIs) of the difference between the two means. However, in some situations, especially when the means are small, interval estimation of the mean ratio (MR) is preferable. Moreover, Cox and Lewis [4 D.R. Cox and P.A.W. Lewis, The Statistical Analysis of Series of Events, Methuen, London, 1966.[Crossref] , [Google Scholar]] pointed out many other situations where the MR is more relevant than the difference of means. In this paper, we consider CI construction for the ratio of means between two treatments for over-dispersed Poisson data. We develop several CIs for the situation by hybridizing two separate CIs for two individual means. Extensive simulations show that all hybrid-based CIs perform reasonably well in terms of coverage. However, the CIs based on the delta method using the logarithmic transformation perform better than other intervals in the sense that they have slightly shorter interval lengths and show better balance of tail errors. These proposed CIs are illustrated with three real data examples.     

Confidence intervals for the difference of marginal probabilities in clustered matched-pair binary data

Although there are several available test statistics to assess the difference of marginal probabilities in clustered matched‐pair binary data, associated confidence intervals (CIs) are not readily available. Herein, the construction of corresponding CIs is proposed, and the performance of each CI is investigated. The results from Monte Carlo simulation study indicate that the proposed CIs perform well in maintaining the nominal coverage probability: for small to medium numbers of clusters, the intracluster correlation coefficient‐adjusted McNemar statistic and its associated Wald or Score CIs are preferred; however, this statistic becomes conservative when the number of clusters is larger so that alternative statistics and their associated CIs are preferred. In practice, a combination of the intracluster correlation coefficient‐adjusted McNemar statistic with an alternative statistic is recommended. To illustrate the practical application, a real clustered matched‐pair collection of data is used to illustrate testing the difference of marginal probabilities and constructing the associated CIs. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Sample size needed to get given ratio of endpoints for confidence interval of standard deviation in a normal distribution

Confidence interval (CI) for a standard deviation in a normal distribution, based on pivotal quantity with a Chi-square distribution, is considered. As a measure of CI quality, the ratio of its endpoints is taken. There are given formulas for sample sizes so that this ratio does not exceed a fixed value. Both equally tailed and minimum ratio of endpoint CIs are considered.     

Confidence intervals for the comparison of two poisson distributions

Confidence interval construction the difference in mean event rates for two Index independent , Poisson samples is discussed. Intervals are derived by considering Bayes estimates of the mean event rates using a family of noninformative priors. The coverage probabilities of the proposed are compared to those of the standard Wald interval for of observed events. A compromise method of constructing interval based on the data is suggested and its properties are evaluated. The method is illustrated in several examples.     

Matching pseudocounts for interval estimation of binomial and Poisson parameters

ABSTRACT

For interval estimation of a binomial proportion and a Poisson mean, matching pseudocounts are derived, which give the one-sided Wald confidence intervals with second-order accuracy. The confidence intervals remove the bias of coverage probabilities given by the score confidence intervals. Partial poor behavior of the confidence intervals by the matching pseudocounts is corrected by hybrid methods using the score confidence interval depending on sample values.     

Confidence Intervals for the Weighted Sum of Two Independent Binomial Proportions

Confidence intervals for the difference of two binomial proportions are well known, however, confidence intervals for the weighted sum of two binomial proportions are less studied. We develop and compare seven methods for constructing confidence intervals for the weighted sum of two independent binomial proportions. The interval estimates are constructed by inverting the Wald test, the score test and the Likelihood ratio test. The weights can be negative, so our results generalize those for the difference between two independent proportions. We provide a numerical study that shows that these confidence intervals based on large‐sample approximations perform very well, even when a relatively small amount of data is available. The intervals based on the inversion of the score test showed the best performance. Finally, we show that as for the difference of two binomial proportions, adding four pseudo‐outcomes to the Wald interval for the weighted sum of two binomial proportions improves its coverage significantly, and we provide a justification for this correction.     

A fiducial approach to multiple comparisons

Comparing treatment means from populations that follow independent normal distributions is a common statistical problem. Many frequentist solutions exist to test for significant differences amongst the treatment means. A different approach would be to determine how likely it is that particular means are grouped as equal. We developed a fiducial framework for this situation. Our method provides fiducial probabilities that any number of means are equal based on the data and the assumed normal distributions. This methodology was developed when there is constant and non-constant variance across populations. Simulations suggest that our method selects the correct grouping of means at a relatively high rate for small sample sizes and asymptotic calculations demonstrate good properties. Additionally, we have demonstrated the flexibility in the methods ability to calculate the fiducial probability for any number of equal means. This was done by analyzing a simulated data set and a data set measuring the nitrogen levels of red clover plants that were inoculated with different treatments.     

Confidence intervals for two sample binomial distribution

This paper considers confidence intervals for the difference of two binomial proportions. Some currently used approaches are discussed. A new approach is proposed. Under several generally used criteria, these approaches are thoroughly compared. The widely used Wald confidence interval (CI) is far from satisfactory, while the Newcombe's CI, new recentered CI and score CI have very good performance. Recommendations for which approach is applicable under different situations are given.     

Confidence Intervals for Difference Between Two Poisson Rates

In this article, we develop four explicit asymptotic two-sided confidence intervals for the difference between two Poisson rates via a hybrid method. The basic idea of the proposed method is to estimate or recover the variances of the two Poisson rate estimates, which are required for constructing the confidence interval for the rate difference, from the confidence limits for the two individual Poisson rates. The basic building blocks of the approach are reliable confidence limits for the two individual Poisson rates. Four confidence interval estimators that have explicit solutions and good coverage levels are employed: the first normal with continuity correction, Rao score, Freeman and Tukey, and Jeffreys confidence intervals. Using simulation studies, we examine the performance of the four hybrid confidence intervals and compare them with three existing confidence intervals: the non-informative prior Bayes confidence interval, the t confidence interval based on Satterthwait's degrees of freedom, and the Bayes confidence interval based on Student's t confidence coefficient. Simulation results show that the proposed hybrid Freeman and Tukey, and the hybrid Jeffreys confidence intervals can be highly recommended because they outperform the others in terms of coverage probabilities and widths. The other methods tend to be too conservative and produce wider confidence intervals. The application of these confidence intervals are illustrated with three real data sets.     

Gompertz model with time-dependent covariate in the presence of interval-, right- and left-censored data

In this paper, the Gompertz model is extended to incorporate time-dependent covariates in the presence of interval-, right-, left-censored and uncensored data. Then, its performance at different sample sizes, study periods and attendance probabilities are studied. Following that, the model is compared to a fixed covariate model. Finally, two confidence interval estimation methods, Wald and likelihood ratio (LR), are explored and conclusions are drawn based on the results of the coverage probability study. The results indicate that bias, standard error and root mean square error values of the parameter estimates decrease with the increase in study period, attendance probability and sample size. Also, LR was found to work slightly better than the Wald for parameters of the model.     

Confidence Intervals of Performance Measures for an M/G/1 Queueing System

In this article, we discuss constructing confidence intervals (CIs) of performance measures for an M/G/1 queueing system. Fiducial empirical distribution is applied to estimate the service time distribution. We construct fiducial empirical quantities (FEQs) for the performance measures. The relationship between generalized pivotal quantity and fiducial empirical quantity is illustrated. We also present numerical examples to show that the FEQs can yield new CIs dominate the bootstrap CIs in relative coverage (defined as the ratio of coverage probability to average length of CI) for performance measures of an M/G/1 queueing system in most of the cases.     

The effect of spillover on the Granger causality test

In this paper, we investigate the properties of the Granger causality test in stationary and stable vector autoregressive models under the presence of spillover effects, that is, causality in variance. The Wald test and the WW test (the Wald test with White's proposed heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator imposed) are analyzed. The investigation is undertaken by using Monte Carlo simulation in which two different sample sizes and six different kinds of data-generating processes are used. The results show that the Wald test over-rejects the null hypothesis both with and without the spillover effect, and that the over-rejection in the latter case is more severe in larger samples. The size properties of the WW test are satisfactory when there is spillover between the variables. Only when there is feedback in the variance is the size of the WW test slightly affected. The Wald test is shown to have higher power than the WW test when the errors follow a GARCH(1,1) process without a spillover effect. When there is a spillover, the power of both tests deteriorates, which implies that the spillover has a negative effect on the causality tests.     

Confidence intervals for assessing equivalence of two treatments with combined unilateral and bilateral data

Responses from the paired organs are generally highly correlated in bilateral studies, statistical procedures ignoring the correlation could lead to incorrect results. Note the intraclass correlation in the study of combined unilateral and bilateral outcomes; 11 confidence intervals (CIs) including 7 asymptotic CIs and 4 Bootstrap-resampling CIs for assessing the equivalence of 2 treatments are derived under Rosner''s correlated binary data model. Performance is evaluated with respect to the empirical coverage probability (ECP), the empirical coverage width (ECW) and the ratio of the mesial non-coverage probability to the non-coverage probability (RMNCP) via simulation studies. Simulation results show that (i) all CIs except for the Wald CI and the bias-corrected Bootstrap percentile CI generally produce satisfactory ECPs and hence are recommended; (ii) all CIs except for the bias-corrected Bootstrap percentile CI provide preferred RMNCPs and are more symmetrical; (iii) as the measurement of the dependence increases, the ECWs of all CIs except for the score CI and the profile likelihood CI show increasing patterns that look like linear, while there is no obvious pattern on the ECPs of all CIs except for the profile likelihood CI. A data set from an otolaryngologic study is used to illustrate the proposed methods.     

Performance of confidence interval tests for the ratio of two lognormal means applied to Weibull and gamma distribution data

Five estimation approaches have been developed to compute the confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of two lognormal means: (1) T, the CI based on the t-test procedure; (2) ML, a traditional maximum likelihood-based approach; (3) BT, a bootstrap approach; (4) R, the signed log-likelihood ratio statistic; and (5) R*, the modified signed log-likelihood ratio statistic. The purpose of this study was to assess the performance of these five approaches when applied to distributions other than lognormal distribution, for which they were derived. Performance was assessed in terms of average length and coverage probability of the CIs for each estimation approaches (i.e., T, ML, BT, R, and R*) when data followed a Weibull or gamma distribution. Four models were discussed in this study. In Model 1, the sample sizes and variances were equal within the two groups. In Model 2, the sample sizes were equal but variances were different within the two groups. In Model 3, the variances were different within the two groups and the larger variance was paired with the larger sample size. In Model 4, the variances were different within the two groups and the larger variance was paired with the smaller sample size. The results showed that when the variances of the two groups were equal, the t-test performed well, no matter what the underlying distribution was and how large the variances of the two groups were. The BT approach performed better than the others when the underlying distribution was not lognormal distribution, although it was inaccurate when the variances were large. The R* test did not perform well when the underlying distribution was Weibull or gamma distributed data, but it performed best when the data followed a lognormal distribution.