The Equivalence of Two Proportions Revisited

A. Martin Andres and I. Herranz Tejedor

Journal of Applied Statistics, 2004, vol. 31, issue 1, 61-72

Abstract: The classic conditional test for checking that the difference between two independent proportions is not null may not be appropriate in many circumstances. Dunnett & Gent (1977) showed that in clinical trials, in studies of drugs, etc, the aim is to prove the practical equality (equivalence) of both proportions. On other occasions the aim may be the opposite: i.e. to prove that the two proportions are substantially different (biologically significant). Both cases are usually solved by two one-sided tests (TOST test). In this article, this procedure is shown to be conservative and two true two-sided tests for each case are proposed.

Keywords: Confidence intervals; comparisons of two proportions; conditional test; equivalence test; Z test; ω² test; 2×2 tables (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2004
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0266476032000148957 (text/html)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:taf:japsta:v:31:y:2004:i:1:p:61-72

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.tandfonline.com/pricing/journal/CJAS20

DOI: 10.1080/0266476032000148957

Access Statistics for this article

Journal of Applied Statistics is currently edited by Robert Aykroyd

More articles in Journal of Applied Statistics from Taylor & Francis Journals
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Chris Longhurst ().