Notice: On April 23, 2014, Statalist moved from an email list to a forum, based at statalist.org.
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
st: why don't confidence intervals from -proportion- use the same formula as -ci-?
From
Ronan Conroy <[email protected]>
To
statalist edu <[email protected]>
Subject
st: why don't confidence intervals from -proportion- use the same formula as -ci-?
Date
Fri, 11 Jan 2013 11:44:42 +0000
I have a real problem with the confidence intervals produced by the -proportion- command.
. input outcome freq
outcome freq
1. 0 21
2. 1 2
3. end
Here is the confidence interval which is most probably closest the the nominal coverage according to
- Brown L, Cai T, DasGupta A. Interval estimation for a binomial proportion. Statistical Science. 2001;16(2):101–17.
. ci outcome [fw=freq], bin wil
------ Wilson ------
Variable | Obs Mean Std. Err. [95% Conf. Interval]
-------------+---------------------------------------------------------------
outcome | 23 .0869565 .0587534 .02418 .2679598
Now here is what -proportion- does.
. proportion outcome [fw=freq]
Proportion estimation Number of obs = 23
--------------------------------------------------------------
| Proportion Std. Err. [95% Conf. Interval]
-------------+------------------------------------------------
outcome |
0 | .9130435 .0600739 .7884579 1.037629
1 | .0869565 .0600739 -.037629 .2115421
--------------------------------------------------------------
.
end of do-file
According to the manual:
"Methods and formulas
proportion is implemented as an ado-file.
Proportions are means of indicator variables; see [R] mean."
Is anyone prepared to defend this approach as the only formula implemented by -proportion-? Or indeed to tell me that they have managed to publish a paper that included confidence intervals such as the one above?
I myself find this bizarre. Consider the example above. The confidence interval includes a value that is impossible - zero. With two observed successes, the success rate cannot be zero. And it includes probabilities that have no definition: negative probabilities. While I am prepared to accept that physicists have now produced temperatures that are lower than absolute zero, I cannot bring myself to persuade anyone that a confidence interval for a probability can extend beyond the interval 0-1.
I believe it would be good if Stata's -proportion- command allowed the choice of some more believable methods.
Ronán Conroy
[email protected]
Associate Professor
Division of Population Health Sciences
Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland
Beaux Lane House
Dublin 2
*
* For searches and help try:
* http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search
* http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/resources/statalist-faq/
* http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/