- I offer a suggestion of a reference.
On 10 May 2001 17:25:36 GMT, Ronald Bloom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[ snip, much detail ]
> It has become the custom, in epidemiological reports
> to use always the hypergeometric inference test --
> The Fisher Exact Test -- when treating 2x2 tables
> arising from all manner of experimental setups -- e.g.
>
> a.) the prospective study
> b.) the cross-sectional study
> 3.) the retrospective (or case-control) study
> [ ... ]
I don't know what you are reading, to conclude that this
has "become the custom." Is that a standard for some
journals, now?
I would have thought that the Logistic formulation was
what was winning out, if anything.
My stats-FAQ has mention of the discussion published in
JRSS (Series B) in the1980s. Several statisticians gave
ambivalent support to Fisher's test. Yates argued the logic
of the exact test, and he further recommended the X2 test
computed with his (1935) adjustment factor, as a very accurate
estimator of Fisher's p-levels.
I suppose that people who hate naked p-levels will have to
hate Fisher's Exact test, since that is all it gives you.
I like the conventional chisquared test for the 2x2, computed
without Yates's correction -- for pragmatic reasons. Pragmatically,
it produces a good imitation of what you describe, a randomization
with a fixed N but not fixed margins. That is ironic, as Yates
points out (cited above) because the test "assumes fixed margins"
when you derive it.
--
Rich Ulrich, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.pitt.edu/~wpilib/index.html
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
=================================================================
