Exact Properties of Some Exact Test Statistics for Comparing Two Binomial Proportions
比较两个二项比例的若干精确检验统计量的精确性质AI 解读 ↓
本页整理公开书目信息,不生成学术质量评分。AI 解读根据题名及所注明的摘要或原文片段生成,未完成全文核验,可能有误;具体假设、证明与结论请核对原文。摘要保留来源文本,未经模型改写。
DOI 首次登记不等于接收或发表日期。部分更正、评论等条目没有独立摘要;缺少可靠材料时保留待补状态。
引用量采用 OpenAlex 单条关联记录,不合计多个记录;关联记录可能包含正式发表版本,不等于此版本单独引用。缺失不视为零,引用指标不代表论文质量。
关注作者按书目中的完整姓名匹配,同名和姓名变体需人工辨别。相关论文先按共享细分方向和具体方法排列,再参考通用方法与发表日期。
AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类:摘要讨论通用二项比例检验,未提供因果识别、离散选择或其他所列细分方向的直接依据。
比较两个二项比例的若干精确检验统计量的精确性质AI 解读 ↓
正在核对关联版本…
正在核对对应版本的资源…
Using exact unconditional distributions, we evaluated the size and power of four exact test procedures and three versions of the χ2 statistic for the two-sample binomial problem in small-to-moderate sample sizes. The exact unconditional test (Suissa and Shuster 1985) and Fisher's (1935) exact test are the only tests whose size can be guaranteed never to exceed the nominal size. Though the former is distinctly more powerful, it is also computationally difficult. We propose an alternative that approximates the exact unconditional test by computing the exact distribution of the χ2 statistic at a single point, the maximum likelihood estimate of the common success probability. This test is a modification of the test of Liddell (1978), which considered the exact distribution of the difference in the sample proportions. Our test is generally more powerful than either the exact unconditional or Liddell's test, and its true size rarely exceeds the nominal size. The uncorrected χ2 statistic is frequently anticonservative, but the magnitude of the excess in size is usually moderate. Though this point has been somewhat controversial for many years, we endorse the view that one should not use Fisher's exact test or Yates's continuity correction in the usual unconditional sampling setting.