Comparison of type I error rates and test power among ANOM, Wald, and log-likelihood ratio tests for proportions.
In this study, in experiments where groups are compared based on a binary variable, the Analysis of Means (ANOM), Wald, and Log-Likelihood Ratio tests for proportions were compared under comprehensive experimental conditions in terms of type I error rate and test power. As a result of 50,000 simulations, it was observed that the type I error rate for ANOM stayed within the 4.00% to 6.00% range under all experimental conditions. For the LR test, the type I error rate was negatively affected by small sample sizes (n=10, sometimes n=20). For the Wald test, the type I error rate generally fell outside the 4.00%-6.00% limits and was quite irregular. In terms of test power, ANOM and the LR test were similar, although ANOM performed slightly better. Considering both type I error rate and test power together, ANOM was found to be considerably superior to the other two tests.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Soner Yiğit (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: