On Power Approximations and Comparison of Several Asymptotic Tests to Detect a Specified Difference between Two Proportions

A large sample test is proposed for a problem of testing for a specified difference between two binomial proportions. The test is compared to the tests by Falk and Koch (1998 Falk , R. W. , Koch , G. G. ( 1998 ). Testing a specified difference between proportions . Biometrics 54 ( 4 ): 1602 – 1614 .[Crossref] , [Google Scholar]), and Parmet and Schechtman (2007 Parmet , Y. , Schechtman , E. ( 2007 ). On a test of the difference between two binomial proportions . Communications in Statistics – Theory and Methods 36 : 887 – 895 .[Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]), and is shown to dominate in terms of the Type I error rate control. Asymptotic power is derived for each test and is shown to result in values quite proximate to the simulated power values. In addition, formulas to perform sample size estimation are provided. These methods are expected to be especially valuable in the design stage when obtaining the correct power/sample size estimation is essential.     

Sample Size Requirements for the Back-of-the-Envelope Binomial Confidence Interval

The simplest approximate confidence interval for the binomial parameter p, based on x successes in n trials, is

where c is a suitable percentile of the normal distribution. Because I ₀ is so useful in introductory teaching and for back-of-the-envelope calculation, it is desirable to have guidelines for deciding when it provides a good answer. (It is clearly unwise to use I ₀ when x is too near 0 or n.) This article proposes such guidelines, based on the criterion that I ₀ should differ from the exact Clopper-Pearson confidence interval by an amount that is small compared to the length of the interval.     

Testing the Difference of Two Binomial Proportions: Comparison of Continuity Corrections for Saddlepoint Approximation

We carried out a simulation study based on the methodology of Newcombe (1998 Newcombe , R. G. ( 1998 ). Interval estimation for the difference between independent proportions: comparison of eleven methods . Statist. Med. 17 : 873 – 890 .[Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) to compare tests for the difference of two binomial proportions by applying different continuity corrections on saddlepoint approximation to tail probabilities. In this article, we proposed a new continuity correction based on the least common multiple of two sample sizes. We evaluated that the best test should have the actual Type I error rates that are, on the whole, closest to α, but not exceeding α, where α is nominal level of significance.     

Exact Size and Power Properties of Five Tests for Multinomial Proportions

Estimators of the expectations of order statistics, suggested by Harrell &; Davis, are used in place of the order statistics in a quantile estimator, proposed by Kappenman , to produce a modification of Kappenman's procedure. Simulation studies indicate that the modification generally results in a reduction of mean squared error     

Testing the Martingale Difference Hypothesis

In this paper we consider testing that an economic time series follows a martingale difference process. The martingale difference hypothesis has typically been tested using information contained in the second moments of a process, that is, using test statistics based on the sample autocovariances or periodograms. Tests based on these statistics are inconsistent since they cannot detect nonlinear alternatives. In this paper we consider tests that detect linear and nonlinear alternatives. Given that the asymptotic distributions of the considered tests statistics depend on the data generating process, we propose to implement the tests using a modified wild bootstrap procedure. The paper theoretically justifies the proposed tests and examines their finite sample behavior by means of Monte Carlo experiments.     

Exact Confidence Intervals,Based on the Z Statistic,for the Difference Between Two Proportions

We show that the confidence interval version of the extended exact unconditional Z test of Suissa and Shuster (1985) for testing the equality of two binomial proportions is due to general results of Buehler (1957), Sudakov and references cited there (1974), and Harris and Soms (1984). We apply these results to obtain exact unconditional confidence intervals for the difference between two proportions, deriving an explicit solution for the “best” outcome, make some comments on Buehler's (1957) method and give a numerical example. The Appendix contains a listing of the necessary FORTRAN programs.     

A Note on the Use of Confidence Limits following Rejection of a Null Hypothesis

The equivalence of some tests of hypothesis and confidence limits is well known. When, however, the confidence limits are computed only after rejection of a null hypothesis, the usual unconditional confidence limits are no longer valid. This refers to a strict two-stage inference procedure: first test the hypothesis of interest and if the test results in a rejection decision, then proceed with estimating the relevant parameter. Under such a situation, confidence limits should be computed conditionally on the specified outcome of the test under which estimation proceeds. Conditional confidence sets will be longer than unconditional confidence sets and may even contain values of the parameter previously rejected by the test of hypothesis. Conditional confidence limits for the mean of a normal population with known variance are used to illustrate these results. In many applications, these results indicate that conditional estimation is probably not good practice.     

不同总体量和样本量时如何计算比例的置信区间

在总体或者总体子集不大情况下的抽样调查中,往往不易得出合理的关于比例的区间估计。这一类问题在抽样调查实践中已经严重到非说不可的地步。文章讨论了在样本量不大或者(和)在总体不大时估计比例的置信区间时往往忽略的问题,并给出了在不同情况下如何计算置信区间的方法。     

Charting small sample characteristics of asymptotic confidence intervals for the binomial parameterp

Small sample properties of seven confidence intervals for the binomial parameterp (based on various normal approximations) and of the Clopper-Pearson interval are compared. Coverage probabilities and expected lower and upper limits of the intervals are graphically displayed as functions of the binomial parameterp for various sample sizes.     

Revisiting Beal's Confidence Intervals for the Difference of Two Binomial Proportions

Confidence interval construction for the difference of two independent binomial proportions is a well-known problem with a full panoply of proposed solutions. In this paper, we focus largely on the family of intervals proposed by Beal (1987 Beal , S. ( 1987 ). Asymptotic confidence intervals for the difference between two binomial parameters for use with small samples . Biometrics 43 : 941 – 950 . [CSA] [CROSSREF] [Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). This family, which includes the Haldane and Jeffreys–Perks intervals as special cases, assumes a symmetric prior distribution for the population proportions p ₁ and p ₂. We propose new methods that allow the currently observed data to set the prior distribution by taking a parametric empirical-Bayes approach; in addition, we also provide an investigation of the new interval' behaviors in small-sample situations. Unlike other solutions, our intervals can be used adaptively for experiments conducted in multiple stages over time. We illustrate this notion using data from an Argentinean study involving the Mal Rio Cuarto virus and its transmission to susceptible maize crops.     

The higher order large-deviation approximation for the distribution of the sum of independent discreterandom variables

For a sum of not identic ally but independently distributed discrete random variables, its higher order large-deviation approximation in given. They are compared with the normal and Edge-worth type approximations in various cases. Consequently, the large-deviation approximations give sufficiently accurate results.     

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.     

Bayesian Confidence Interval for the Difference of Two Proportions in the Matched-Paired Design

This article studies the construction of Bayesian confidence interval for the difference of two proportions in the matched-pair design, and applies it to the equiva-lence or non inferiority test. Under the Dirichlet prior distribution, the exact posterior distribution of difference of two proportions is derived. The tail confidence interval and the highest posterior density (HPD) interval are studied, and their frequentist performance are investigated by simulation in terms of the mean coverage probability of interval. Our results suggest to use tail interval at Jeffreys prior for testing equivalence or non inferiority in matched-pair design.     

Testing the Equality of Two Proportions for Combined Unilateral and Bilateral Data

In many medical comparative studies (e.g., comparison of two treatments in an otolaryngological study), subjects may produce either bilateral (e.g., responses from a pair of ears) or unilateral (response from only one ear) data. For bilateral cases, it is meaningful to assume that the information between the two ears from the same subject are generally highly correlated. In this article, we would like to test the equality of the successful cure rates between two treatments with the presence of combined unilateral and bilateral data. Based on the dependence and independence models, we study ten test statistics which utilize both the unilateral and bilateral data. The performance of these statistics will be evaluated with respect to their empirical Type I error rates and powers under different configurations. We find that both Rosner's and Wald-type statistics based on the dependence model and constrained maximum likelihood estimates (under the null hypothesis) perform satisfactorily for small to large samples and are hence recommended. We illustrate our methodologies with a real data set from an otolaryngology study.     

More on the distribution of the sum of uniform random variables

The paper provides a simplified derivation of the density of the sum of independent non-identically distributed uniform random variables via an inverse Fourier transform. We also provide examples illustrating the quality of the Normal approximation and corresponding MATHEMATICA code.     

Additional approximations to the distribution of a structural coefficient estimator for the case of two included endogenous variables

Four new approximations t o the exact distribution of the two-stage l e a s t squares estimator of astructuralcoefficient for

the case of two included endogeneous variables are introduced and compared with the others in the literatur e . Two of the new approximations are based on the Pearson distribution and are found to be adequate throughout the parameter space. A normal approximation using exact moments and an approximation based on the saddlepoint method (Holly and Phillips,1979) are found to be

poor for a wide range of parameter values.     

Confidence Interval of the Difference of Two Independent Binomial Proportions Using Weighted Profile Likelihood

Interval estimation of the difference of two independent binomial proportions is an important problem in many applied settings. Newcombe (1998 Newcombe , R. G. ( 1998 ). Interval estimation for the difference between independent proportions: comparison of seven methods . Statistics in Medicine 17 : 873 – 890 .[Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) compared the performance of several existing asymptotic methods, and based on the results obtained, recommended a method known as Wilson's method, a modified version of a method originally proposed for single binomial proportion. In this article, we propose a method based on profile likelihood, where the likelihood is weighted by noninformative Jeffrey' prior. By doing extensive simulations, we find that the proposed method performs well compared to Wilson's method. A SAS/IML program implementing this method is also given with this article.     

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.     

两个正态分布变异系数差与商的近似置信区间

变异系数是衡量产品质量稳定性的一个重要指标,在实际应用中经常需要研究两种不同环境下变异系数的差异问题。文章在大样本场合给出了两个正态分布变异系数的差与商的近似置信区间、单侧近似置信下限与单侧近似置信上限的计算公式,这些公式计算简单,仅依赖于两个样本变异系数及样本容量,且Monte-Carlo模拟结果表明可以达到给出的置信水平。同时,通过几个算例可以为方法的应用提供参考。     

General Saddlepoint Approximation for Testing Separate Location-Scale Families of Hypotheses

For testing separate families of hypotheses, the likelihood ratio test does not have the usual asymptotic properties. This paper considers the asymptotic distribution of the ratio of maximized likelihoods (RML) statistic in the special case of testing separate scale or location-scale families of distributions. We derive saddlepoint approximations to the density and tail probabilities of the log of the RML statistic. These approximations are based on the expansion of the log of the RML statistic up to the second order, which is shown not to depend on the location and scale parameters. The resulting approximations are applied in several cases, including normal versus Laplace, normal versus Cauchy, and Weibull versus log-normal. Our results show that the saddlepoint approximations are satisfactory, even for fairly small sample sizes, and are more accurate than normal approximations and Edgeworth approximations, especially for tail probabilities that are the values of main interest in hypothesis testing problems.