IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/amstat/v76y2022i1p29-36.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Difference Between Binomial Proportions Using Newcombe’s Method With Multiple Imputation for Incomplete Data

Author

Listed:
  • Yulia Sidi
  • Ofer Harel

Abstract

The difference between two binomial proportions is commonly used in applied research. Since many studies encounter incomplete data, proper methods to analyze such data are needed. Here, we present a proper multiple imputation (MI) procedure for constructing confidence interval for difference between binomial proportions using Newcombe’s method, which is known to have a better coverage probability when compared with Wald’s method. We use both a conventional MI procedure for ignorable missingness and a two-stage MI for non-ignorable missingness. Using simulation studies, we compare our method to three other methods and provide recommendation for the use of such methods in practice. In addition, we show the application of our new method on a COVID-19 dataset.

Suggested Citation

  • Yulia Sidi & Ofer Harel, 2022. "Difference Between Binomial Proportions Using Newcombe’s Method With Multiple Imputation for Incomplete Data," The American Statistician, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 76(1), pages 29-36, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:amstat:v:76:y:2022:i:1:p:29-36
    DOI: 10.1080/00031305.2021.1898468
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/00031305.2021.1898468
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/00031305.2021.1898468?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:amstat:v:76:y:2022:i:1:p:29-36. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/UTAS20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.