Stata The Stata listserver
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date index][Thread index]

RE: st: Binomial confidence intervals


From   "Nichols, Austin" <ANichols@ui.urban.org>
To   "'statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu'" <statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu>
Subject   RE: st: Binomial confidence intervals
Date   Wed, 8 Sep 2004 12:07:57 -0400

I found the comment by Corcoran and Mehta particularly compelling.  The
inverted LR test looks better to me than all the alternatives.  On a related
topic, did anyone come up with a way to estimate confidence intervals for
proportions in -svyset- data that would be robust to cells with no observed
successes?

-----Excerpted Message-----
From: Ronán Conroy [mailto:rconroy@rcsi.ie]
Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2004 11:56 AM
To: statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu
Subject: Re: st: Binomial confidence intervals

Reading the paper and examining their graphs, it's really much of a 
muchness between Wilson and Jeffreys, which seem to suffer less from the 
lucky/unlucky p and N combinations than the Agresti. Agresti certainly 
gets third place, but did anyone reading the paper spot a compelling 
advantage of Wilson over Jeffreys, or the other way around? I didn't.


*
*   For searches and help try:
*   http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/res/findit.html
*   http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
*   http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/



© Copyright 1996–2014 StataCorp LP   |   Terms of use   |   Privacy   |   Contact us   |   What's new   |   Site index