JOURNAL BROWSE
Search
Advanced SearchSearch Tips
Interval Estimation of the Difference of two Population Proportions using Pooled Estimator
facebook(new window)  Pirnt(new window) E-mail(new window) Excel Download
 Title & Authors
Interval Estimation of the Difference of two Population Proportions using Pooled Estimator
Hong, Chong-Sun;
  PDF(new window)
 Abstract
In order to examine whether the difference between two point estimates of population proportions is statistically significant, data analysts use two techniques. The first is to explore the overlap between two associated confidence intervals. Second method is to test the significance which is introduced at most statistical textbooks under the common assumptions of consistency, asymptotic normality, and asymptotic independence of the estimates. Under the null hypothesis which is two population proportions are equal, the pooled estimator of population proportion is preferred as a point estimator since two independent random samples are considered to be collected from one population. Hence as an alternative method, we could obtain another confidence interval of the difference of the population proportions with using the pooled estimate. We conclude that, among three methods, the overlapped method is under-estimated, and the difference of the population proportions method is over-estimated on the basis of the proposed method.
 Keywords
Confidence Intervals;Efficiency;Overlap;Pooled Estimator;Power;Test of Significance;Type 1 error;
 Language
Korean
 Cited by
 References
1.
로그선형모형을 이용한 범주형자료분석, 1999.

2.
American Heart Joural, 1998. vol.136. pp.818-823 crossref(new window)

3.
British Medical Journal, 2000. vol.321. pp.818-823

4.
Emerging Infectious Diseases, 2000. vol.6. pp.412-414 crossref(new window)

5.
Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 1999. vol.41. pp.1051-1052 crossref(new window)

6.
The Cochrane Library, 2001. vol.1. pp.2001

7.
Theoretical Statistics, 1974.

8.
Mathematical Method of Statistics, 1946.

9.
Journal of Medical Entomology, 2000. vol.37. pp.919-923 crossref(new window)

10.
Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2000. vol.92. pp.106-111 crossref(new window)

11.
Journal of Nuclear Medicine, 1998. vol.39. pp.1062-1066

12.
Clinical and experimental Allergy, 1999. vol.29. pp.375-381 crossref(new window)

13.
Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, 2000. vol.59. pp.407-408 crossref(new window)

14.
The Clinical Journal of Pain, 1998. vol.14. pp.29-38 crossref(new window)

15.
Clinical Neuropharmacology, 2000. vol.23. pp.262-266 crossref(new window)

16.
CDC Surveillance Summaries, 2000. pp.49(SS-5)

17.
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2001. vol.54. pp.263-274 crossref(new window)

18.
Cancer Research, 1999. vol.59. pp.5181-5185

19.
Health Education Research, 2000. vol.15. pp.59-72 crossref(new window)

20.
The Lancet, 2000. vol.356. pp.1850 crossref(new window)

21.
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention, 2000. vol.9. pp.567-573

22.
Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 1997. vol.37. pp.803-804 crossref(new window)

23.
American Statistician, 2001. vol.55. 3, pp.182-186 crossref(new window)

24.
Journal of Medical Genetics, 1999. vol.36. pp.405-411

25.
American Journal of Epidemiology, 2001. vol.153. pp.309-318 crossref(new window)

26.
Clinical Cancer Research, 2001. vol.7. pp.738-744

27.
The Journal of Nutrition, 1998. vol.128. pp.152-157

28.
International Journal of Epidemiology, 1999. vol.28. pp.859-864 crossref(new window)