Log in
RegisterCI inclusion operationally identical to TOST [BE/BA News]
Dear Helmut,
Of course the two calculations are different, no doubt about it.
I have understood “operationally identical” always as the fact that TOST and CI inclusion give the same answer with regard to the BE decision.
IMHO this is the meaning of the paragraph on page 661 in Donalds famous paper containing “operationally identical”:
"The two one-sided tests procedure turns out to be operationally identical to the procedure of declaring equivalence only if the ordinary 1 - 2α (not 1-α) confidence interval for µT-µR is completely contained in the equivalence interval [θ1, θ2]".
Emphasis by me.
❝ ...
❝ Given, Donald used the phrase “operationally identical” on p.661 (right column, 2nd paragraph).
❝
❝ However, for me (!) those are two different “operations”. Results of an example:
❝ 90% CI: lower CL = 0.8448
❝ upper CL = 1.1003
❝ CI within 0.8000 and 1.2500: passed BE
❝ TOST : p(<0.8000) = 0.01239
❝ p(>1.2500) = 0.001565
❝ p(<0.8000) <0.05 and p(>1.2500) <0.05: passed BE
Of course the two calculations are different, no doubt about it.
I have understood “operationally identical” always as the fact that TOST and CI inclusion give the same answer with regard to the BE decision.
IMHO this is the meaning of the paragraph on page 661 in Donalds famous paper containing “operationally identical”:
"The two one-sided tests procedure turns out to be operationally identical to the procedure of declaring equivalence only if the ordinary 1 - 2α (not 1-α) confidence interval for µT-µR is completely contained in the equivalence interval [θ1, θ2]".
Emphasis by me.
—
Regards,
Detlew
Regards,
Detlew
Complete thread:
- WHO frequent deficiencies in protocols and reports Ohlbe 2020-12-04 12:04 [BE/BA News]
![[Mix]](https://static.bebac.at/img/mix.png "open in Mix view")
- WHO frequent deficiencies in protocols and reports ElMaestro 2020-12-04 14:10
- CI inclusion ≠ TOST Helmut 2020-12-04 20:30
- CI inclusion ≠ TOST d_labes 2020-12-05 16:19
- CI inclusion ≠ TOST ElMaestro 2020-12-05 16:49
- CI inclusion ≠ TOST d_labes 2020-12-07 11:39
- CI inclusion ≠ TOST Helmut 2020-12-06 22:09
- CI inclusion operationally identical to TOSTd_labes 2020-12-07 11:11
- WHO lamenting about terminology? Helmut 2020-12-07 13:02
- WHO lamenting about terminology? ElMaestro 2020-12-07 14:54
- WHO lamenting about terminology? d_labes 2020-12-07 15:35
- WHO lamenting about terminology? Helmut 2020-12-07 13:02
- CI inclusion operationally identical to TOSTd_labes 2020-12-07 11:11
- CI inclusion ≠ TOST ElMaestro 2020-12-05 16:49
- CI inclusion ≠ TOST d_labes 2020-12-05 16:19
- CI inclusion ≠ TOST Helmut 2020-12-04 20:30
- WHO frequent deficiencies in protocols and reports Helmut 2020-12-22 19:00
- "obtain balanced groups" vs randomisation ElMaestro 2020-12-23 08:12
- WHO frequent deficiencies in protocols and reports ElMaestro 2020-12-04 14:10
Ing. Helmut Schütz