Timeline for How to quantify whether the difference between two groups is relevant?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 27, 2015 at 14:05 | comment | added | a3nm | OK, this seems to make sense to me, thanks a lot! Now I'm just puzzled by the relationship of this to contingency tables and Fisher's test, which I linked when editing my post. Are there any connection between the two formalisms? | |
| Jun 27, 2015 at 13:48 | comment | added | Penguin_Knight | @a3nm, yes, $p_A$ is $m_A/n_A$. The values of the group sizes are included in the computation of the standard error as a reciprocal. If one of the groups is much smaller, the standard error will be higher, making the confidence interval wider and more likely to include the null value of 1. The relative risk itself does not convey group size information. | |
| Jun 27, 2015 at 13:24 | comment | added | a3nm | As for your second paragraph, I'm not interested in complicating the problem or adjusting for any other characteristics for now, I'm just trying to understand this simplified, abstract problem. | |
| Jun 27, 2015 at 13:21 | comment | added | a3nm | Thanks for your answer! When you talk of $p_A$ and $p_B$, are you defining those as $m_A/n_A$ and $m_B/n_B$? If so, where do you account for the absolute values of $n_A$ and $n_B$ (i.e., following the intuition that larger populations allow more definite conclusions)? Would this be in the confidence interval? (If so I'm not sure how you do it.) | |
| Jun 27, 2015 at 13:14 | history | answered | Penguin_Knight | CC BY-SA 3.0 |