Skip to content

AW: [R] binom.test appropriate?

2 messages · Lüdde Mirko, Brian Ripley

Original
Lüdde Mirko
# 
No, 

since I'd like to test 

	null: p <= p0
	alternative: p > p0. 

and my understanding is that binom.test tests

	null: p = p0 (can only be a "simple" null hypothesis 
			according to help(binom.test))
	alternative: p > p0 (or p < p0 or p != p0). 

Thanks, Mirko.
... snipped ...
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
r-help mailing list -- Read http://www.ci.tuwien.ac.at/~hornik/R/R-FAQ.html
Send "info", "help", or "[un]subscribe"
(in the "body", not the subject !)  To: r-help-request at stat.math.ethz.ch
_._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._
Brian Ripley
#
On Sat, 9 Jun 2001, [iso-8859-1] Lüdde Mirko wrote:

            

      
      
      
    

        
But: the test for p = p0 vs p > p0 is the appropriate test for
p <= p0 vs p > p0 within this family of tests, by the monotonicity
properties.

You mentioned a 2 x 2 table and UMPU, but did not say exactly what you are
doing or how the data were sampled, nor how this hypothesis arises.  Under
one set of assumptions, I believe the UMPU theory you mention tells you to
use the binom.test for p = p0 vs p > p0, but it may be that other tests
(Fisher's exact test springs to mind) are more appropriate.  (And the last
U can be insidious, just as it can be for estimation.)

It's rare to have hypotheses like p = p0 or p <= p0 with p0 known
precisely: Mendelian genetics provides almost all the examples I have ever
seen.  If p0 comes from past experience, then it's a different problem.

[...]