Analysis of the ratio of marginal probabilities in a matched‐pair setting
- 19 February 2002
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Wiley in Statistics in Medicine
- Vol. 21 (5) , 689-699
- https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.1017
Abstract
Statistical methods for testing and interval estimation of the ratio of marginal probabilities in the matched‐pair setting are considered in this paper. We are especially interested in the situation where the null value is not one, as in one‐sided equivalence trials. We propose a Fieller‐type statistic based on constrained maximum likelihood (CML) estimation of nuisance parameters. For a series of examples, the significance level of the CML test is satisfactorily close to the nominal level, while a Wald‐type test is anticonservative for reasonable sample sizes. We present formulae for approximate power and sample size for the CML and Wald tests. The matched design is seen to have a clear advantage over the unmatched design in terms of asymptotic efficiency when the two responses of the pair are highly positively correlated. We recommend the CML method over the Wald method, especially for small or moderate sample sizes. Published in 2002 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.Keywords
This publication has 13 references indexed in Scilit:
- Evaluation of Vaginal Infections in Adolescent Women: Can It Be Done Without a Speculum?Published by American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) ,1998
- Equivalence test and confidence interval for the difference in proportions for the paired-sample designStatistics in Medicine, 1998
- Establishing equivalence of two treatments and sample size requirements in matched-pairs design.Published by JSTOR ,1997
- On the sample size for one‐sided equivalence of sensitivities based upon McNemar's testStatistics in Medicine, 1995
- Sample size requirements for stratified prospective studies with null hypothesis of non‐unity relative risk using the score testStatistics in Medicine, 1994
- Test statistics and sample size formulae for comparative binomial trials with null hypothesis of non‐zero risk difference or non‐unity relative riskStatistics in Medicine, 1990
- APPROXIMATE CONFIDENCE INTERVALSBiometrika, 1953
- APPROXIMATE CONFIDENCE INTERVALSBiometrika, 1953
- Note on the sampling error of the difference between correlated proportions or percentagesPsychometrika, 1947