Comparative statistical analysis reveals near-equivalent efficiency between matched-pairs designs and standard large-sample proportion tests, suggesting minimal power loss when pairing data.
Two methods for testing hypotheses concerning the equality of two proportions are compared. The first method is the large sample test for proportions considered in most elementary texts. The other method is applicable under more general assumptions than the first and requires a pairing of the observations from the two populations. The two procedures are compared, using three different measures of asymptotic efficiency, under conditions where both are applicable. At least for the measures of efficiency considered, the matched pairs procedure is shown to do almost as well as the usual large sample test.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gerald R. Chase (1968) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: