Tests Based on Intrinsic Priors for the Equality of Two Correlated Proportions

Correlated proportions arise in longitudinal (panel) studies. A typical example is the “opinion swing“ problem: “Has the proportion of people favoring a politician changed after his recent speech to the nation on TV?“ Because the same group of individuals is interviewed before and after the speech, the two proportions are correlated. A natural null hypothesis to be tested is whether the corresponding population proportions are equal. A standard Bayesian approach to this problem has already been considered in the literature, based on a Dirichlet prior for the cell probabilities of the underlying 2 × 2 table under the alternative hypothesis, together with an induced prior under the null. With a lack of specific prior information, a diffuse (e.g., uniform) distribution may be used. We claim that this approach is not satisfactory, because in a testing problem one should make sure that the prior under the alternative is adequately centered around the region specified by the null, in order to obtain a fairer comparison between the two hypotheses, especially when the data are in reasonable agreement with the null. Following an intrinsic prior methodology, we develop two strategies for the construction of a collection of objective priors increasingly peaked around the null. We provide a simple interpretation of their structure in terms of weighted imaginary sample scenarios. We illustrate our method by means of three examples, carrying out sensitivity analysis and providing comparison with existing results.

[1]  P. M. E. Altham,et al.  The analysis of matched proportions , 1971 .

[2]  Christian P. Robert,et al.  The Bayesian choice : from decision-theoretic foundations to computational implementation , 2007 .

[3]  M. Kendall,et al.  Kendall's advanced theory of statistics , 1995 .

[4]  G. Consonni,et al.  Bayesian model comparison based on expected posterior priors , 2009 .

[5]  George Casella,et al.  Assessing Robustness of Intrinsic Tests of Independence in Two-Way Contingency Tables , 2009 .

[6]  A. Agresti,et al.  Categorical Data Analysis , 1991, International Encyclopedia of Statistical Science.

[7]  A. O'Hagan,et al.  Kendall's Advanced Theory of Statistics, Vol. 2b: Bayesian Inference. , 1996 .

[8]  Alan Agresti,et al.  HIERARCHICAL BAYESIAN ANALYSIS OF BINARY MATCHED PAIRS DATA , 2000 .

[9]  BAYESIAN ANALYSIS OF CORRELATED PROPORTIONS , 2001 .

[10]  J. Berger,et al.  Expected‐posterior prior distributions for model selection , 2002 .

[11]  J. Berger,et al.  The Intrinsic Bayes Factor for Model Selection and Prediction , 1996 .

[12]  G. Casella,et al.  Objective Bayesian Variable Selection , 2006 .

[13]  Anthony O'Hagan,et al.  Kendall's Advanced Theory of Statistics: Vol. 2B, Bayesian Inference. , 1996 .

[14]  Q. Mcnemar Note on the sampling error of the difference between correlated proportions or percentages , 1947, Psychometrika.

[15]  J. Ghosh Elimination of Nuisance Parameters , 1988 .

[16]  Ram C. Tiwari,et al.  Analysis of Opinion Swing: Comparison of Two Correlated Proportions , 2000 .

[17]  Wicher P. Bergsma,et al.  Marginal models for categorical data , 2002 .

[18]  J. Bernardo Reference Analysis , 2005 .

[19]  Walter Racugno,et al.  An Intrinsic Limiting Procedure for Model Selection and Hypotheses Testing , 1998 .

[20]  A. W. Kemp,et al.  Kendall's Advanced Theory of Statistics. , 1994 .

[21]  J. Berger,et al.  Robust Bayesian displays for standard inferences concerning a normal mean , 2000 .

[22]  L. Broemeling,et al.  A bayesian alternative to the analysis of matched categorical responces , 1996 .