Skip to main content
Cross Validated

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

5
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks AdamO. I have the standard errors already so I could calculate confidence intervals directly from these... Thanks for the tip... $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 8, 2013 at 18:21
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I missed that. I'll correct my answer to get rid of tedious algebra. $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 8, 2013 at 18:22
  • $\begingroup$ I believe encouraging such a test based on visual inspection is a bad idea. As well, I don't think the stated overlap criteria are very good. Granted you did say 'naive.' The mean and variance are known; how about a z-test? $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 8, 2013 at 18:42
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ That is not a test based on visual inspection. Tests based on the overlap of 95% confidence intervals are equivalent to the Wald test which is consistent and unbiased. It conveniently can also be depicted graphically with a forest plot of 95% confidence intervals. Otherwise, there are no multiple testing issues introduced by this test (a usual consequence of exploratory analyses using excessive plots). $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 8, 2013 at 20:22
  • $\begingroup$ Hello, thank you all for your comments. I have finally managed to get hold of the raw data, so this should simplify things! $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 9, 2013 at 16:12