<?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 PROC SURVEYFREQ in Statistical Procedures</title>
    <link>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/PROC-SURVEYFREQ/m-p/318175#M16783</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Can PROC SURVEYFREQ be used to conduct a McNemar's test?&amp;nbsp; If not, can PROC SURVEYMEANS be used test whether the difference in the proportions is 0 (i.e., compute a difference score and get the T and PROBT stats)? If so, are there any references for such an analysis?&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 12 Dec 2016 01:06:19 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>jrohay</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2016-12-12T01:06:19Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>PROC SURVEYFREQ</title>
      <link>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/PROC-SURVEYFREQ/m-p/318175#M16783</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Can PROC SURVEYFREQ be used to conduct a McNemar's test?&amp;nbsp; If not, can PROC SURVEYMEANS be used test whether the difference in the proportions is 0 (i.e., compute a difference score and get the T and PROBT stats)? If so, are there any references for such an analysis?&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 12 Dec 2016 01:06:19 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/PROC-SURVEYFREQ/m-p/318175#M16783</guid>
      <dc:creator>jrohay</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2016-12-12T01:06:19Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: PROC SURVEYFREQ</title>
      <link>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/PROC-SURVEYFREQ/m-p/318289#M16789</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Since McNemar's test doesn't apparenlty use variance in calculations do you need SurveryFreq? Proc Freq will do one.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 12 Dec 2016 15:32:47 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/PROC-SURVEYFREQ/m-p/318289#M16789</guid>
      <dc:creator>ballardw</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2016-12-12T15:32:47Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: PROC SURVEYFREQ</title>
      <link>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/PROC-SURVEYFREQ/m-p/318295#M16790</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I'll support&amp;nbsp;&lt;a href="https://communities.sas.com/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/13884"&gt;@ballardw&lt;/a&gt;'s suggestion. &amp;nbsp;Here is an example from a survey, that uses PROC FREQ:&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;A href="http://www.stat.purdue.edu/~tqin/system101/method/method_mcnemar_sas.htm" target="_blank"&gt;http://www.stat.purdue.edu/~tqin/system101/method/method_mcnemar_sas.htm&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;That isn't to say that there aren't complex survey methods for McNemar tests out there (google is your friend for this)--it's just that from the info given, PROC FREQ seems adequate.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Steve Denham&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 12 Dec 2016 15:53:54 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/PROC-SURVEYFREQ/m-p/318295#M16790</guid>
      <dc:creator>SteveDenham</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2016-12-12T15:53:54Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

