Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Testing the Difference of Two Binomial Proportions: Comparison of Continuity Corrections for Saddlepoint Approximation

Testing the Difference of Two Binomial Proportions: Comparison of Continuity Corrections for... We carried out a simulation study based on the methodology of Newcombe (1998) to compare tests for the difference of two binomial proportions by applying different continuity corrections on saddlepoint approximation to tail probabilities. In this article, we proposed a new continuity correction based on the least common multiple of two sample sizes. We evaluated that the best test should have the actual Type I error rates that are, on the whole, closest to α, but not exceeding α, where α is nominal level of significance. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Communications in Statistics: Theory and Methods Taylor & Francis

Testing the Difference of Two Binomial Proportions: Comparison of Continuity Corrections for Saddlepoint Approximation

6 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/taylor-francis/testing-the-difference-of-two-binomial-proportions-comparison-of-uhw0QIdLn7

References (3)

Publisher
Taylor & Francis
Copyright
Copyright Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN
1532-415X
eISSN
0361-0926
DOI
10.1080/03610920701875275
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

We carried out a simulation study based on the methodology of Newcombe (1998) to compare tests for the difference of two binomial proportions by applying different continuity corrections on saddlepoint approximation to tail probabilities. In this article, we proposed a new continuity correction based on the least common multiple of two sample sizes. We evaluated that the best test should have the actual Type I error rates that are, on the whole, closest to α, but not exceeding α, where α is nominal level of significance.

Journal

Communications in Statistics: Theory and MethodsTaylor & Francis

Published: May 27, 2008

Keywords: Continuity corrections; Lugannani and Rice formula; Saddlepoint approximation; Type I error rate; Primary 62E17; Secondary 60E99

There are no references for this article.