Examining the Probabilities of Type I Error for Unadjusted All Pairwise Comparisons and Bonferroni Adjustment Approaches in Hypothesis Testing for Proportions

Authors

  • Sengul Cangur Department of Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine, Duzce University, Turkey
  • Handan Ankarali Department of Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine, Duzce University, Turkey

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.6000/1929-6029.2014.03.04.9

Keywords:

Proportion comparison, type I error, bonferroni adjustment, unadjusted all pairwise comparisons.

Abstract

The aim of this study is to examine the association among the probabilities of Type I error obtained by Unadjusted All Pairwise Comparisons (UAPC) and Bonferroni-adjustment approaches, the sample size and the frequency of occurrence of an event (prevalence, proportion) in hypothesis testing of difference among the proportions in studies. In the simulation experiment planned for this purpose, 4 groups were formed and the proportions in each group were chosen between 0.10 and 0.90 so that they will be equal at each experiment. Furthermore, the sample sizes were chosen from 20 to 1000. In accordance with these scenarios, the probabilities of Type I error were calculated by both of approaches. In each approach, a significant S-curve relationship was found between the probability of Type I error and sample size. However, a significant quadratic relationship was found between the probabilities of Type I error and the proportions in each group. Nonlinear functional relations were put forward in order to estimate the observed Type I error rates obtained by the two different approaches where sample size and the proportion in each group are known. Furthermore, it was founded that Bonferroni-adjustment approach cannot always protect Type I error level. It was observed that the probability of Type I error estimated by the functional relation on Type I error rate for UAPC approach is lower than the values calculated using the formula in the literature.

Author Biographies

Sengul Cangur, Department of Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine, Duzce University, Turkey

Biostatistics

Handan Ankarali, Department of Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine, Duzce University, Turkey

Biostatistics

References

Lancaster MB. The derivation and partition of 2 in certain discrete distributions. Biometrika 1949; 36: 117-29. http:// biomet.oxfordjournals.org/content/36/1-2/117.full.pdf+html DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/36.1-2.117

Haberman SJ. The analysis of residuals in cross-classified tables. Biometrics 1973; 29: 205-20. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2529686 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2529686

Zar JH. Biostatistical analysis. 4th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall 1999.

Ryan TA. Significance tests for multiple comparison of proportions, variances and other statistics. Psychol Bull 1960; 57: 318-28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0044320 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/h0044320

Elliott AC, Reisch JS. Implementing a multiple comparison test for proportions in a 2xc crosstabulation in SAS®. Proceedings of the 31st Annual SAS® Users Group International Conference; 2006: March 26-29; San Francisco, CA. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc 2006: pp. 204-31.

Kim SB, Tsui KL, Borodovsky M. Multiple hypothesis testing in large-scale contingency tables: inferring patterns of pair-wise amino acid association in β-sheets. IJBRA 2006; 2: 193-217. http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJBRA.2006.009768 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBRA.2006.009768

Horne J, Plaehn D. Multiple comparisons on 2xc proportions. SAS Conference Proceedings: Pacific Northwest SAS Users Group 2007 (PNWSUG). Seattle, WA: Pacific Northwest SAS Users Group; 2007. Available from: www.pnwsug.org/ content/multiple-comparisons-2xc-proportions

Teriokhin AT, de Meeûs T, Guégan JF. On the power of some binomial modifications of the Bonferroni multiple test. Zh Obshch Biol 2007; 68(5): 332-40.

Toothaker LE. Multiple comparison procedures. Newbury Park, CA: Sage 1993. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412985178

Downloads

Published

2014-11-06

How to Cite

Cangur, S., & Ankarali, H. (2014). Examining the Probabilities of Type I Error for Unadjusted All Pairwise Comparisons and Bonferroni Adjustment Approaches in Hypothesis Testing for Proportions. International Journal of Statistics in Medical Research, 3(4), 404–411. https://doi.org/10.6000/1929-6029.2014.03.04.9

Issue

Section

General Articles