[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date index][Thread index]

From |
[email protected] |

To |
[email protected] |

Subject |
st: -sampsi- command and exact tests |

Date |
Tue, 01 Feb 2005 20:15:14 -0500 |

Dear Statalisters- I understand from several previous posts that the command -sampsi- uses an approximate large sample test on proportion. power, and sample size calculations. Specifically, it uses the normal approximation (with correction) as opposed to an exact test. The advice in a previous post was that the following equalities must hold in order for sampsi to work adequately: n1p1>=10 n1(1-p1)>=10 n2p2>=10 n2(1-p2)>=10 (see post from [email protected] entitled st:RE: calculation of sample size, dated 8 Oct 2004) I am trying to use sampsi to estimate the required number of samples as follows: sampsi 0.4 0.46, alpha(0.05) power(0.90) onesample Stata indicates that 711 samples are required as indicated in the Stata output below: sampsi 0.4 0.46, alpha(0.05) power(0.90) onesample Estimated sample size for one-sample comparison of proportion to hypothesized value Test Ho: p = 0.4000, where p is the proportion in the population Assumptions: alpha = 0.0500 (two-sided) power = 0.9000 alternative p = 0.4600 Estimated required sample size: n = 711 This seems to meet the n1p1>=10 etc. requirements listed above to use the -sampsi- command. However, I am told that the right answer using NQuery Advisor and its exact test for single proportions is 610 observations. S-Plus gives 613 as an answer. StatXact also gives a similar answer to NQuery Advisor and S-Plus. Does anyone know if Stata's use of the normal approximation (with continuity correction) is indeed what is causing the 100+ discrepancy here? Is there is an exact test in Stata that can be used instead of -sampsi-? And are there additional criteria beyond the n1p1>=10 etc. criteria listed in the referenced previous post that should be checked before using -sampsi- ? I have used the -findit- command to see if there is an exact test available and looked at both Roger Newson's -powercal- command described in the most recent Stata Journal (4th Quarter 2004) as well as Al Feiveson's article entitled "Power by Simulation" (Stata Journal, 2nd Quarter 2002) and wasn't able to find the answer to this question. Is the -sampncti- command appropriate here? thanks for any help. david. David Miller, Senior Scientist Health Effects Division Office of Pesticide Programs 703-305-5352 (voice) 703 605-1289 (fax) visit: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/ * * 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/

**Follow-Ups**:**st: RE: -sampsi- command and exact tests***From:*"Yulia Marchenko" <[email protected]>

- Prev by Date:
**Re: st: Measures of fit in clogit** - Next by Date:
**st: RE: Re: Marker labels with background color** - Previous by thread:
**Re: st: Measures of fit in clogit** - Next by thread:
**st: RE: -sampsi- command and exact tests** - Index(es):

© Copyright 1996–2024 StataCorp LLC | Terms of use | Privacy | Contact us | What's new | Site index |