The appropriateness of some common procedures for testing the equality of two independent binomial populations

American Statistician

Volumn 42, Issue 3, 1988, Pages 198-202

  D’Agostino, Ralph B ^a   Chase, Warren ^b   Belanger, Albert ^a  

^a BOSTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b FRAMINGHAM STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Fisher exact test; Ill use of the continuity correction; Robustness of the t test; Small sample testing

Indexed keywords

EID: 33947625905     PISSN: 00031305     EISSN: 15372731     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00031305.1988.10475563     Document Type: Article

References (9)

1. Berkson, J. (1978), “In Dispraise of the Exact Test,” Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference, 2, 27-42.
2. Conover, W. J. (1974), “Some Reasons for Not Using the Yates Continuing Correction on 2 × 2 Contingency Tables,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 69, 374-376.
3. D’Agostino, R. B. (1972), “Relation Between the Chi-Squared and ANOVA Tests for Testing the Equality of k Independent Dichotomous Populations,” The American Statistician, 26, 30-32.
4. Fisher, R. A. (1956), Statistical Methods and Scientific Inferences, Edinburg: Oliver & Boyd.
5. 2 Test for 2 × 2 Tables,” The American Statistician, 21, 28-32.
6. Heeren, T., and D’Agostino, B. (1987), “Robustness of the Two Independent Samples i-Test When Applied to Ordinal Scaled Data,” Statistics in Medicine, 6, 79-90.
7. Kempthome, O. (1979), “In Dispraise of the Exact Test: Reactions,” Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference, 3, 199-213.
8. Mantel, N. (1974), “Comment and a Suggestion” on “Some Reasons for Not Using the Yates Continuity Correction on 2 × 2 Contingency Tables,” by W. J. Conover, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 69, 378-380.
9. Upton, G. J. G. (1982), “A Comparison of Alternative Tests for the 2 × 2 Comparative Trial,” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Ser. A, 145, 86-105.