Michael asked and Joseph responded (not shown) - and Michael then wrote:
The suggestion of a one-sample test restricted to pre-intervention ADOPT=NO crowd makes sense. I think you are also sneakily suggesting that the most obvious null hypothesis -- "H0: p = 0" is not a good choice; there would probably be some adoption even in the absence of the intervention, and the intervention probably cannot be called a success unless the proportion of adopters exceeds a minimum cost/benefit threshold. Instead, I could choose, e.g., "H0: p < .25" (a one-tailed test). That seems reasonable.
===============================================================
I wonder whether a P-value related to a somewhat arbitrary null hypothesis is useful. I think the following is more informative:
Assume that you had 90 participants, 40 of whom already had the good habit, leaving 50 "at risk" for improvement. 20 (40%) of these improved. The 95% CI for this estimate is 26%-55%:
. cii 50 20 , binomial
-- Binomial Exact --
Variable | Obs Mean Std. Err. [95% Conf. Interval]
-------------+---------------------------------------------------------------
| 50 .4 .069282 .2640784 .548206
Hope this helps
Svend
________________________________________________________
Svend Juul
Institut for Folkesundhed, Afdeling for Epidemiologi
(Institute of Public Health, Department of Epidemiology)
Bartholins Allé 2
DK-8000 Aarhus C, Denmark
Phone: +45 8693 7796
Mobile: +45 2634 7796
E-mail: [email protected]
_________________________________________________________
*
* For searches and help try:
* http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search
* http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
* http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/
