Notice: On March 31, it was **announced** that Statalist is moving from an email list to a **forum**. The old list will shut down on April 23, and its replacement, **statalist.org** is already up and running.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

From |
Kenneth A Knapp <kenneth.knapp@shu.edu> |

To |
"statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu" <statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu> |

Subject |
RE: st: prtest confidence interval |

Date |
Sun, 11 Nov 2012 11:21:51 -0500 |

Steve, thanks so much for your help. Ken K Seton Hall ________________________________________ From: owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu [owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu] On Behalf Of Steve Samuels [sjsamuels@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2012 11:08 PM To: statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu Subject: Re: st: prtest confidence interval The Manual entry for -prtest- shows the formula that it uses the normal approximation. This approximation doesn't "know" that the binomial CIs should be in [0,1]. Also the confidence intervals based on the approximation are bad unless "n" is large, especially for high and low values of the unknown probability (Brown et al., 2001). So the answer to your first question is "No" and the answer to your second is "Yes". For CIs, the "exact" confidence intevals (Clopper-Pearson) are very conservative. (Agresti & Coul, 1998). I recommend -ci- with the -binomial- and -agresti- option. Also, if you are interested in a test p-value, run -bitest- with the -detail- option and construct your own mid-p-value (Agresti, 2002, p. 20) using the returned results Steve Agresti, A., and B.A. Coull. 1998. Approximate is better than “exact” for interval estimation of binomial proportions. The American Statistician 52, no. 2: 119-126. Agresti, A. 2002. Categorical data analysis. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-interscience. Brown, L.D., T.T. Cai, and A. DasGupta. 2001. Interval estimation for a binomial proportion. Statistical Science 101-117. available at: http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~wainer/cursos/2s2009/1009213286.pdf Steve On Nov 10, 2012, at 4:17 PM, Kenneth A Knapp wrote: For a binary variable, to get a confidence interval I include the "binomial" option: ci variable, binomial (variable is the name of a binary variable) Trouble is, when I exectute: prtest variable==X (X is a number between 0 and 1) the reported confidence interval doesn't match the interval obtained from "ci variable, binomial" Rather, the reported confidence interval is the same as I get when I execute "ci viariable" -- that is, the ci command without the "binomial" option. A particular binary variable I am working with has an upper bound confidence interval > 1 when I execute "ci" without the binomial option. Any way to correct prtest so that the confidence intervals reported match those you get when you execute ci with the binomial option? Is such a correction even needed? Any help would be very much appreciated. Ken K Seton Hall * * For searches and help try: * http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search * http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/resources/statalist-faq/ * http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/ * * For searches and help try: * http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search * http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/resources/statalist-faq/ * http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/ * * For searches and help try: * http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search * http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/resources/statalist-faq/ * http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/

**References**:**st: prtest confidence interval***From:*Kenneth A Knapp <kenneth.knapp@shu.edu>

**Re: st: prtest confidence interval***From:*Steve Samuels <sjsamuels@gmail.com>

- Prev by Date:
**st: running rcpoisson command** - Next by Date:
**st: Comparing coefficients with interactions in a SUR model** - Previous by thread:
**Re: st: prtest confidence interval** - Next by thread:
**st: logistic regression and interpreting trend across two time points** - Index(es):