Testing marginal homogeneity in clustered matched-pair data

Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference

Volumn 141, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 1313-1318

  Yang, Zhao ^a   Sun, Xuezheng ^b   Hardin, James W ^c  

^a IQVIA   (United States)

^b IL   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA   (United States)

Author keywords

Clustered matched pair data; Marginal homogeneity; McNemar's test; Polytomous response; Stuart Maxwell test

Indexed keywords

EID: 78549261686     PISSN: 03783758     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jspi.2010.10.002     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Bennett B.M. Tests of hypotheses concerning matched samples. Journal of Royal Statistical Society, Series B 1967, 29:468-474.
2. Bhapkar V.P. A note on the equivalence of two test criteria for hypotheses in categorical data. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1966, 61:228-235.
3. Crowder M.J. Beta-binomial ANOVA for proportions. Applied Statistics 1978, 27:34-37.
4. Durkalski V.L., Palesch Y.Y., Lipsitz S.R., Rust P.F. Analysis of clustered matched-pair data. Statistics in Medicine 2003, 22:2417-2428.
5. Eliasziw M., Donner A. Application of the McNemar test to non-independent matched pair data. Statistics in Medicine 1991, 10:1981-1991.
6. Ireland C.T., Ku H.H., Kullback S. Symmetry and marginal homogeneity of an r×r contingency table. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1969, 64:1323-1341.
7. Keefe T.J. On the relationship between two tests for homogeneity of the marginal distributions in a two-way classification. Biometrika 1982, 69:683-684.
8. Krauth J. A comparison of tests for marginal homogeneity in square contingency tables. Biometrical Journal 1985, 27:3-15.
9. Maxwell A.E. Comparing the classification of subjects by two independent judges. British Journal of Psychiatry 1970, 116:651-655.
10. McCulloch C.E., Searle S.R. Generalized, Linear, and Mixed Models 2001, Wiley, New York.
11. McNemar Q. Note on the sampling error of the difference between correlated proportions or percentages. Psychometrika 1947, 12:153-157.
12. Miller M.E., Davis C.C., Landis J.R. The analysis of longitudinal polytomous responses: generalized estimating equations and connections with weighted least squares. Biometrics 1993, 49:1033-1044.
13. Obuchowski N.A. On the comparison of correlated proportions for clustered data. Statistics in Medicine 1998, 17:1495-1507.
14. Paul S.R. Analysis of proportions of affected foetuses in teratological experiments. Biometrics 1982, 38:361-370.
15. Rao J.N.K., Scott A.J. A simple method for the analysis of clustered binary data. Biometrics 1992, 48:577-585.
16. Stuart A. A test for homogeneity of the marginal distributions in a two-way classification. Biometrika 1955, 42:412-416.
17. Williams D.A. The analysis of binary responses from toxicological experiments involving reproduction and teratogenicity. Biometrics 1975, 31:949-952.
18. Yang Z., Sun X. Comments on non-inferiority tests for clustered matched-pair data. Statistics in Medicine 2010, 29:1857-1858.
19. Yang, Z., Sun, X., Hardin, J.W., in press. A note on the tests for clustered matched-pair binary data. Biometrical Journal, doi:. http://10.1002/bimj.201000035.
20. Yang, Z., Sun, X., Hardin, J.W., under review. Testing marginal homogeneity in matched-pair polytomous data.