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

From |
"Nick Cox" <[email protected]> |

To |
<[email protected]> |

Subject |
st: RE: Confidence Interval for Proportion |

Date |
Tue, 11 Mar 2008 14:05:04 -0000 |

The "correct" CI for a binomial variable is a matter of dispute. In your case you are looking for a CI around a point estimate of 0.029. A symmetric CI around such a point estimate is likely to include 0 and some negative values unless the sample size is very, very large. Some people just truncate the interval at 0, but a more defensible procedure is to work on a transformed scale and back-transform, or do something approximately equivalent that yields positive endpoints for the CI with about the right coverage. [R] ci has several pointers to the literature. Alternative CIs can be got in this way: . gen rep78_1 = rep78 == 1 . ci rep78_1 if rep78 < ., binomial jeffreys . ci rep78_1 if rep78 < ., binomial Wilson Nick [email protected] Martin Weiss try this in Stata: ************************ sysuse auto, clear proportion rep78 matrix define A=e(b) matrix define B=e(V) count if rep78!=. *Upper/Lower Bound for proportion of "1" di A[1,1]+invnormal(1-0.05/2)*sqrt(A[1,1]*(1-A[1,1])/`r(N)') di A[1,1]-invnormal(1-0.05/2)*sqrt(A[1,1]*(1-A[1,1])/`r(N)') *Standard Error for "1" *Mistake obviously there... di sqrt(A[1,1]*(1-A[1,1])/`r(N)') ************************ Then let me know: why do I not hit the correct CI for the proportion of "1" in the repair record? Something`s wrong with the standard error, I do not know what, though... * * 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: RE: Confidence Interval for Proportion***From:*"Lachenbruch, Peter" <[email protected]>

**Re: st: RE: Confidence Interval for Proportion***From:*Maarten buis <[email protected]>

**References**:**st: Confidence Interval for Proportion***From:*"Martin Weiss" <[email protected]>

- Prev by Date:
**Re: st: Stata has disappointing support of contrasts/multiple comparisons in mixed ANOVA** - Next by Date:
**Re: st: RE: Stata has disappointing support of contrasts/multiple comparisons in mixed ANOVA** - Previous by thread:
**st: Confidence Interval for Proportion** - Next by thread:
**Re: st: RE: Confidence Interval for Proportion** - Index(es):

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