At 08:14 AM 9/9/2004 -0500, FEIVESON, ALAN H. (AL) (JSC-SK) (NASA) wrote:
All this discussion about failure of binomial confidence intervals to
give
"exact" coverage also applies to the Fisher "exact" test, whose
actual level
(probability of rejecting the null hypothesis of equal proportions,
when in
fact the proportions are equal) is usually less than the nominal level,
depending on the true proprtions. In the frequentist setting, it's
the same
problem - there are only a finite number of possible outcomes.
Al Feiveson
I was wondering about that. So, is there also a raging controversy
over whether some alternative to Fisher is superior, e.g. Yates
correction for continuity? Like Nick Cox said in an earlier post, it
sounds like "exact" is more of a propaganda term than an accurate
description of the test. (Kind of like saying you've got the "best"
product on the market.)
-------------------------------------------
Richard Williams, Notre Dame Dept of Sociology
OFFICE: (574)631-6668, (574)631-6463
FAX: (574)288-4373
HOME: (574)289-5227
EMAIL: [email protected]
WWW (personal): http://www.nd.edu/~rwilliam
WWW (department): http://www.nd.edu/~soc
*
* For searches and help try:
* http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/res/findit.html
* http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
* http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/
