The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Simple and Effective Confidence Intervals for Proportions and Differences of Proportions Result from Adding Two Successes and Two Failures
Abstract
The standard confidence intervals for proportions and their differences used in introductory statistics courses have poor performance, the actual coverage probability often being much lower than intended. However, simple adjustments of these intervals based on adding four pseudo observations, half of each type, perform surprisingly well even for small samples. To illustrate, for a broad variety of parameter settings with 10 observations in each sample, a nominal 95% interval for the difference of proportions has actual coverage probability below .93 in 88% of the cases with the standard interval but in only 1% with the adjusted interval; the mean distance between the nominal and actual coverage probabilities is .06 for the standard interval, but .01 for the adjusted one. In teaching with these adjusted intervals, one can bypass awkward sample size guidelines and use the same formulas with small and large samples.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions
Fleiss, J. L., Levin, B., & Paik, M. C. (2003) · Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics · doi:10.1002/0471445428 · Cited by 18,646
Cited by
Schuetz, P., Christ-Crain, M., Thomann, R., Falconnier, C., Wolbers, M., Widmer, I., Neidert, S., Fricker, T., Blum, C., Schild, U., et al. (2009) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2009.1297 · Cited by 959
Walking the Talk? What Employers Say Versus What They Do
Pager, D., & Quillian, L. (2005) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.1177/000312240507000301 · Cited by 640
A multidisciplinary survey on discrimination analysis
Romei, A., & Ruggieri, S. (2014) · The Knowledge Engineering Review · doi:10.1017/s0269888913000039 · Cited by 288
Optimal Adaptive Designs for Binary Response Trials
Rosenberger, W. F., Stallard, N., Ivanova, A., Harper, C. N., & Ricks, M. L. (2001) · Biometrics · doi:10.1111/j.0006-341x.2001.00909.x · Cited by 270
Novak, P., Kovacech, B., Katina, S., Schmidt, R., Scheltens, P., Kontsekova, E., Ropele, S., Fialova, L., Kramberger, M., Paulenka-Ivanovova, N., et al. (2021) · Nature Aging · doi:10.1038/s43587-021-00070-2 · Cited by 187
Metadata
- Authors
- Agresti, A., & Caffo, B.
- Venue
- The American Statistician
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2000-11
- Volume
- 54
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 280-288
- ISSN
- 0003-1305 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-2731
- OpenAlex
- W2091397788
- Cited by
- 569
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 8.63
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Simple and Effective Confidence Intervals for Proportions and Differences of Proportions Result from Adding Two Successes and Two Failures. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/00031305.2000.10474560
- The paper
- Agresti, A., & Caffo, B. (2000). Simple and Effective Confidence Intervals for Proportions and Differences of Proportions Result from Adding Two Successes and Two Failures. The American Statistician. https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.2000.10474560
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.