Skip to main content
. 2014 Aug 28;14:100. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-14-100

Table 2.

Scenarios studied in this manuscript: Cell frequencies, marginals, proportion observed, bias and prevalence index

Scenario Type of table x 11 x 12 x 21 x 22 f1 f2 g1 g2 P O BI PI
Paradox 1:
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
1
 Symmetrical balance
 40
 9
 6
 45
 49
 51
 46
 54
 .85
 .03
 -.05
2
 Symmetrical imbalance
 80
 10
 5
 5
 90
 10
 85
 15
 .85
 .05
 .75
3
 Perfect symmetrical imbalance
 90
 5
 5
 0
 95
 5
 95
 5
 .90
 0
 .90
Paradox 2:
 P O set at 0.60
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
4
 Symmetrical imbalance
 45
 15
 25
 15
 60
 40
 70
 30
 .60
 -.10
 .30
5
 Asymmetrical imbalance
 25
 35
 5
 35
 60
 40
 30
 70
 .60
 .30
 .10
6
 Perfect symmetrical imbalance
 40
 20
 20
 20
 60
 40
 60
 40
 .60
 0
 .20
7
 Asymmetrical imbalance
 40
 35
 5
 20
 75
 25
 45
 55
 .60
 .30
 .20
8
 Asymmetrical imbalance
 30
 30
 10
 30
 40
 60
 60
 40
 .60
 .20
 0
 
 P O set at 0.90
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
9
 Perfect symmetrical imbalance
 85
 5
 5
 5
 90
 10
 90
 10
 .90
 0
 .80
10
 Symmetrical imbalance
 70
 10
 0
 20
 80
 20
 70
 30
 .90
 .10
 .50
 
 P O low (≤50%)
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
11
 Perfect symmetrical balance
 25
 25
 25
 25
 50
 50
 50
 50
 .50
 0
 0
12
 Asymmetrical imbalance
 30
 30
 20
 20
 60
 40
 50
 50
 .50
 .10
 .10
13
 Perfect symmetrical balance
 20
 30
 30
 20
 50
 50
 50
 50
 .40
 0
 0
14 Perfect symmetrical balance 5 45 45 5 50 50 50 50 .10 0 0