<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Re: Small sample size of paired binary data in Statistical Procedures</title>
    <link>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/Small-sample-size-of-paired-binary-data/m-p/237865#M12601</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi Wayne,&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I am having the same issue you had.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Small sample size.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I have a 4x4 table and thus used Bowker's Test for Symmetry.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I have also collapsed the 4 level response into a dichotomous response, where I used McNemars.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I have tried the Zeros option in the weight statement also.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I am curious as to what you ended up doing with your issue?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;By the way, Steve Denham, SAS will compute the exact McNemars, by adding "AGREE" to the EXACTstatement in PROC FREQ.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thank you,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Kayleah&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Sat, 02 Jan 2016 02:05:22 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Kayleah</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2016-01-02T02:05:22Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Small sample size of paired binary data</title>
      <link>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/Small-sample-size-of-paired-binary-data/m-p/93925#M4621</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hello,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;For two sets of paired binary data (the before and after) I simply wish to compare how well the pairs match. I realize I could just calculate the percentage of matching pairs, but I wonder if a correlation coefficient would be a better approach due to the small sample size (n&amp;lt;10)? The phi &amp;amp; pearson coefficients seem to be the best choices for the given situation.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Does anyone have a better approach or method to analyze the data? Thanks.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Wayne&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Apr 2012 02:43:08 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/Small-sample-size-of-paired-binary-data/m-p/93925#M4621</guid>
      <dc:creator>WayneReid</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2012-04-25T02:43:08Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Small sample size of paired binary data</title>
      <link>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/Small-sample-size-of-paired-binary-data/m-p/93926#M4622</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;How about McNemar’s Test,which is used to paired binary contingency table .&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;And of course , don't forget corresponding analysis&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Ksharp&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Apr 2012 06:04:57 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/Small-sample-size-of-paired-binary-data/m-p/93926#M4622</guid>
      <dc:creator>Ksharp</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2012-04-25T06:04:57Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Small sample size of paired binary data</title>
      <link>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/Small-sample-size-of-paired-binary-data/m-p/93927#M4623</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Ksharp's mention of McNemar's test is right on.&amp;nbsp; I don't know if PROC FREQ gives an exact test for McNemar's test, but with small sample size, it is certainly worth investigating.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Steve Denham&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Apr 2012 13:10:04 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/Small-sample-size-of-paired-binary-data/m-p/93927#M4623</guid>
      <dc:creator>SteveDenham</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2012-04-25T13:10:04Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Small sample size of paired binary data</title>
      <link>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/Small-sample-size-of-paired-binary-data/m-p/93928#M4624</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks for all the input gentlemen. I actually took a long look at McNemar before the initial post. Most of the info I found stated that it requires a sample size of at least 10 &amp;amp; that's why I was looking at correlation coefficients. After further research I did find some info that states the p value can be calculated using the binomial distribution for small sample sizes &amp;amp; a McNemar exact test.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Another additional concern is that after alterations to experiment parameters &amp;amp; data collection that at least 1 &amp;amp; as many as 2 of the contingency table values will be zero. There are 4 possible outcomes (T/T, T/F, F/T, F/F) but the results may only yield 2 or 3 outcomes. Not sure if that will require some type of correction.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I'm still looking but I somewhat feel I'm on the right track.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Wayne&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Apr 2012 03:46:16 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/Small-sample-size-of-paired-binary-data/m-p/93928#M4624</guid>
      <dc:creator>WayneReid</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2012-04-26T03:46:16Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Small sample size of paired binary data</title>
      <link>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/Small-sample-size-of-paired-binary-data/m-p/237865#M12601</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi Wayne,&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I am having the same issue you had.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Small sample size.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I have a 4x4 table and thus used Bowker's Test for Symmetry.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I have also collapsed the 4 level response into a dichotomous response, where I used McNemars.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I have tried the Zeros option in the weight statement also.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I am curious as to what you ended up doing with your issue?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;By the way, Steve Denham, SAS will compute the exact McNemars, by adding "AGREE" to the EXACTstatement in PROC FREQ.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thank you,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Kayleah&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 02 Jan 2016 02:05:22 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/Small-sample-size-of-paired-binary-data/m-p/237865#M12601</guid>
      <dc:creator>Kayleah</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2016-01-02T02:05:22Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

