A Comparison of Large-Sample Confidence Interval Methods for the Difference of Two Binomial Probabilities
- 1 November 1986
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Taylor & Francis in The American Statistician
- Vol. 40 (4) , 318-322
- https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.1986.10475426
Abstract
A simulation study was done to compare seven confidence interval methods, based on the normal approximation, for the difference of two binomial probabilities. Cases considered included minimum expected cell sizes ranging from 2 to 15 and smallest group sizes (NMIN) ranging from 6 to 100. Our recommendation is to use a continuity correction of 1/(2 NMIN) combined with the use of (N − 1) rather than N in the estimate of the standard error. For all of the cases considered with minimum expected cell size of at least 3, this method gave coverage probabilities close to or greater than the nominal 90% and 95%. The Yates method is also acceptable, but it is slightly more conservative. At the other extreme, the usual method (with no continuity correction) does not provide adequate coverage even at the larger sample sizes. For the 99% intervals, our recommended method and the Yates correction performed equally well and are reasonable for minimum expected cell sizes of at least 5. None of the methods performed consistently well for a minimum expected cell size of 2.Keywords
This publication has 4 references indexed in Scilit:
- A Comparison of Alternative Tests for the 2 × 2 Comparative TrialJournal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (General), 1982
- Small-Sample Confidence Intervals forp1–p2andp1/p2in 2 × 2 Contingency TablesJournal of the American Statistical Association, 1980
- Comparing two independent binomial proportions by a modified chi square testBiometrical Journal, 1980
- A pseudo-random number generator for the System/360IBM Systems Journal, 1969