Log in
RegisterInteresting! [General Statistics]
Hi d_labes and ElMaestro,
I'm also struggling with the question now. A 90% CI compares with a hypothesis test at 10%. The 90% CI is equivalent to a statistical assessment of equivalente at the 5% level due the TOST approach, since you're not assessing significance for the null hypothesis of difference in means. Nevertheless, when you apply the model the 90% CI interval is an interval for difference in means regardless of the interpretation of the results in the bioequivalence context. As the statistical conclusion of "difference in means" is obtained at the 10% level and not 5% level, and the term for formulation is assessing whether there is a "difference in means" and not equivalence, the p value for formulation will be significant at the 10% significance level if the 90% confidence interval does not contains 1. So it is completly plausible for me to have a 90% CI without 1 and a non-significant p value for formulation at the 5% significance level.
Am I understanding the issue wrongly?
Regards,
David
I'm also struggling with the question now. A 90% CI compares with a hypothesis test at 10%. The 90% CI is equivalent to a statistical assessment of equivalente at the 5% level due the TOST approach, since you're not assessing significance for the null hypothesis of difference in means. Nevertheless, when you apply the model the 90% CI interval is an interval for difference in means regardless of the interpretation of the results in the bioequivalence context. As the statistical conclusion of "difference in means" is obtained at the 10% level and not 5% level, and the term for formulation is assessing whether there is a "difference in means" and not equivalence, the p value for formulation will be significant at the 10% significance level if the 90% confidence interval does not contains 1. So it is completly plausible for me to have a 90% CI without 1 and a non-significant p value for formulation at the 5% significance level.
Am I understanding the issue wrongly?
Regards,
David
Complete thread:
- Relationship between calculated 90% CI and sign. treatment effect in BE GM 2017-03-27 19:40 [General Statistics]
![[Mix]](https://static.bebac.at/img/mix.png "open in Mix view")
- 1–2α CI and TOST at α 0.05 Helmut 2017-03-27 23:47
- 1–2α CI and TOST at α 0.05 GM 2017-03-28 06:50
- 1–2α CI and TOST at α 0.05 DavidManteigas 2017-03-28 11:48
- 1–2α CI and TOST at α 0.05 ElMaestro 2017-03-28 13:12
- alpha TOST is not alpha 2-sided d_labes 2017-03-28 15:12
- Interesting! ElMaestro 2017-03-28 21:10
- Google has the answer d_labes 2017-03-29 08:20
- Interesting!DavidManteigas 2017-03-29 11:16
- Interesting! ElMaestro 2017-03-29 11:20
- Interesting! DavidManteigas 2017-03-29 12:28
- 95% CI for a test on difference d_labes 2017-03-29 14:24
- Interesting! GM 2017-03-29 20:06
- Interesting! nobody 2017-03-30 08:24
- Interesting! DavidManteigas 2017-03-29 12:28
- Interesting! ElMaestro 2017-03-29 11:20
- Interesting! ElMaestro 2017-03-28 21:10
- alpha TOST is not alpha 2-sided d_labes 2017-03-28 15:12
- Relationship between calculated 90% CI and sign. treatment effect in BE GM 2017-03-29 12:11
- Relationship between calculated 90% CI and sign. treatment effect in BE DavidManteigas 2017-03-29 12:30
- 1–2α CI and TOST at α 0.05 ElMaestro 2017-03-28 13:12
- 1–2α CI and TOST at α 0.05 DavidManteigas 2017-03-28 11:48
- 1–2α CI and TOST at α 0.05 GM 2017-03-28 06:50
- 1–2α CI and TOST at α 0.05 Helmut 2017-03-27 23:47
Ing. Helmut Schütz