LISTSERV at the University of Georgia
Menubar Imagemap
Home Browse Manage Request Manuals Register
Previous messageNext messagePrevious in topicNext in topicPrevious by same authorNext by same authorPrevious page (August 2002, week 4)Back to main SAS-L pageJoin or leave SAS-L (or change settings)ReplyPost a new messageSearchProportional fontNon-proportional font
Date:         Mon, 26 Aug 2002 15:12:39 -0700
Reply-To:     Cassell.David@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV
Sender:       "SAS(r) Discussion" <SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
From:         "David L. Cassell" <Cassell.David@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV>
Subject:      Re: Stratified Non-parametric analysis / confidence intervals
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Jones John <John.Jones@UCB-GROUP.COM> replied: > I would recommend some variation on the Cochran-Mantel-Hanzel test. This > statistic is well documented in the FREQ procedure.

While I agree with John's excellent (of course!) advice, I just want to point out one issue. The original poster wrote:

>> The van Elteren test could be an alternative, but according to a text >> book, it is only applicable, if the results per center are not >> contradicting each other (i.e., in one center treatment A is better than >> B and in an other center B is better than A).

The CMH tests also are at a disadvantage when the results by 'stratum' are not all aligned similarly. In fact, CMH tests are notorious for their low power for detecting a significant association when the patterns for some strata run opposite to those of other strata. So the poster needs to check for this when reporting his results, because a nonsigificant result *may* mean that no association was found, or it *may* mean that there is no dominant pattern of association, while significant associations can still exist within separate strata.

Ahh, the joys of real data...

David -- David Cassell, CSC Cassell.David@epa.gov Senior computing specialist mathematical statistician


Back to: Top of message | Previous page | Main SAS-L page