Thanks Eric and Nayak
I had a little trouble deciphering the Methods, but it seems there were 6 classrooms; two were treated with installation of active upper room germicidal ultraviolet light (the intervention group), and 4 were not (the merged control group, containing 2 classrooms with no fixtures and 2 with placebo fixtures).
Classroom absenteeism rates were measured monthly from September 2011 to May 2012. So the unit of analysis was the classroom, of which there were 2 intervention units and 4 control units.
The experiment was repeated from October 2012 to January 2013.
So besides my initial question about M-W test applied to proportion data, there is the issue of serial correlation of the monthly measurements.
--Chris Ryan
------------------------------
Christopher Ryan
Clinical Associate Professor of Family Medicine
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 07-18-2022 16:23
From: Eric Siegel
Subject: Mann Whitney test for proportion data
Hello, Chris
I can see only the article's abstract. The rest of the article is behind a paywall. And all that the abstract says is that "Nonparametric statistical methods were applied". Do they say in the article that they used specifically the Mann-Whitney test?
The reason why I ask is because the abstract indicates they have only 3 classrooms per group. With sample sizes of only 3 per group, the lowest possible 2-tailed p-value that the Mann-Whitney test will give them is p=0.0495, and to get it, they have to use the Normal approximation without a continuity correction. The Exact Mann-Whitney method yields 2-tailed p=0.100, and Mann-Whitney with the Normal approximation plus continuity correction = 0.05 yields 2-tailed p=0.0809. Um, it's not wrong to do Mann-Whitney on two groups of only 3 per group. It just seems awfully low-powered and non-robust to do so.
------------------------------
Eric Siegel, MS
Biostatistics Project Manager
Department of Biostatistics
Univ. Arkansas Medical Sciences
------------------------------