Binomial Confidence Intervals and Contingency Tests: Mathematical Fundamentals and the Evaluation of Alternative Methods
Open accessAbstract
Many statistical methods rely on an underlying mathematical model of probability based on a simple approximation, one that is simultaneously well-known and yet frequently misunderstood. The Normal approximation to the Binomial distribution underpins a range of statistical tests and methods, including the calculation of accurate confidence intervals, performing goodness of fit and contingency tests, line- and model-fitting, and computational methods based upon these. A common mistake is in assuming that, since the probable distribution of error about the “true value” in the population is approximately Normally distributed, the same can be said for the error about an observation. This paper is divided into two parts: fundamentals and evaluation. First, we examine the estimation of confidence intervals using three initial approaches: the “Wald” (Normal) interval, the Wilson score interval and the “exact” Clopper-Pearson Binomial interval. Whereas the first two can be calculated directly from formulae, the Binomial interval must be approximated towards by computational search, and is computationally expensive. However this interval provides the most precise significance test, and therefore will form the baseline for our later evaluations. We also consider two further refinements: employing log-likelihood in intervals (also requiring search) and the effect of adding a continuity correction. Second, we evaluate each approach in three test paradigms. These are the single proportion…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Validation studies of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale for the antenatal period
Kozinszky, Z., & Dudas, R. B. (2015) · Journal of Affective Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.jad.2015.01.044 · Cited by 307 · see citing works
Hybrid physics-informed neural networks for lithium-ion battery modeling and prognosis
Nascimento, R. G., Corbetta, M., Kulkarni, C. S., & Viana, F. A. C. (2021) · Journal of Power Sources · doi:10.1016/j.jpowsour.2021.230526 · Cited by 224 · see citing works
Potential of GPT-4 for Detecting Errors in Radiology Reports: Implications for Reporting Accuracy
Gertz, R. J., Dratsch, T., Bunck, A. C., Lennartz, S., Iuga, A.-I., Hellmich, M. G., Persigehl, T., Pennig, L., Gietzen, C. H., Fervers, P., et al. (2024) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.232714 · Cited by 143 · see citing works
Huber, L. S., Geirhos, R., & Wichmann, F. A. (2023) · Journal of Vision · doi:10.1167/jov.23.7.4 · Cited by 42 · see citing works
Kwon, H., Clifford, G. D., Genias, I., Bernhard, D., Esper, C. D., Factor, S. A., & McKay, J. L. (2023) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s23041766 · Cited by 24 · see citing works
Clinical, familial, and neuroimaging features of CADASIL‐like patients
Nannucci, S., Pescini, F., Bertaccini, B., Bianchi, S., Ciolli, L., Valenti, R., Dotti, M. T., Federico, A., Inzitari, D., & Pantoni, L. (2015) · Acta Neurologica Scandinavica · doi:10.1111/ane.12284 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
Groot, T., & Valdenegro - Toro, M. (2024) · Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on Trustworthy Natural Language Processing (TrustNLP 2024) · doi:10.18653/v1/2024.trustnlp-1.13 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
de Viron, S., Trotta, L., Steijn, W., Young, S., & Buyse, M. (2024) · Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science · doi:10.1007/s43441-024-00613-w · Cited by 9 · see citing works
“The DIS observed at the end of the study is used instead, which enables an assessment of the natural evolution of an “at-risk” site’s DIS in the absence of SDM. Additionally, 95% Wilson score confidence intervals were used to estimate the DIS improvement in both studies [20].”
MethodThe Danger of Overthinking: Examining the Reasoning-Action Dilemma in Agentic Tasks
Cuadron, A., Li, D., Ma, W., Wang, X., Wang, Y., Zhuang, S., Liu, S., Schroeder, L. G., Xia, T., Mao, H., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.08235 · Cited by 2
vCache: Verified Semantic Prompt Caching
Schroeder, L. G., Desai, A., Cuadron, A., Chu, K., Liu, S., Zhao, M., Krusche, S., Kemper, A., Zaharia, M., & Gonzalez, J. E. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.03771
- Authors
- Wallis, S.
- Affiliations
- University College London (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Wallis, Sean
- ORCID
- Wallis, Sean
- Venue
- Journal of Quantitative Linguistics
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2013-07-04
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 178-208
- ISSN
- 0929-6174 (ISSN-L)
- 1744-5035
- OpenAlex
- W2100922564
- Cited by
- 313
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 23 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 33 · 2023: 33 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 34 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 23 · 2016: 26 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 4
- FWCI
- 14.09
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Journal of Quantitative Linguistics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Economic and Social Research Council (RES-000-23-1286)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Probability and Statistical Research
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Distribution Estimation and Applications
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
- Keywords
- binomial confidence intervals, Wald interval, Wilson score interval, Clopper-Pearson interval, continuity correction, Yates' correction, goodness-of-fit tests, statistical power
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