Continuity correction

Continuity correctionMain

Community hub

7 pages, 0 posts

0 subscribers

Recent from talks

Be the first to start a discussion here.

Recent from talks

Be the first to start a discussion here.

Contribute something

About hubMembersContent overviewUpdatesRules

Main reference articles

Continuity correction

View on Wikipedia

from Wikipedia

In mathematics, a continuity correction is an adjustment made when a discrete object is approximated using a continuous object.

Examples

[edit]

Binomial

[edit]

If a random variable X has a binomial distribution with parameters n and p, i.e., X is distributed as the number of "successes" in n independent Bernoulli trials with probability p of success on each trial, then

P(X\leq x)=P(X<x+1)

for any x ∈ {0, 1, 2, ... n}. If np and np(1 − p) are large (sometimes taken as both ≥ 5), then the probability above is fairly well approximated by

P(Y\leq x+1/2)

where Y is a normally distributed random variable with the same expected value and the same variance as X, i.e., E(Y) = np and var(Y) = np(1 − p). This addition of 1/2 to x is a continuity correction.

Poisson

[edit]

A continuity correction can also be applied when other discrete distributions supported on the integers are approximated by the normal distribution. For example, if X has a Poisson distribution with expected value λ then the variance of X is also λ, and

P(X\leq x)=P(X<x+1)\approx P(Y\leq x+1/2)

if Y is normally distributed with expectation and variance both λ.

Applications

[edit]

Before the ready availability of statistical software having the ability to evaluate probability distribution functions accurately, continuity corrections played an important role in the practical application of statistical tests in which the test statistic has a discrete distribution: it had a special importance for manual calculations. A particular example of this is the binomial test, involving the binomial distribution, as in checking whether a coin is fair. Where extreme accuracy is not necessary, computer calculations for some ranges of parameters may still rely on using continuity corrections to improve accuracy while retaining simplicity.

References

[edit]

Devore, Jay L., Probability and Statistics for Engineering and the Sciences, Fourth Edition, Duxbury Press, 1995.
Feller, W., On the normal approximation to the binomial distribution, The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, Vol. 16 No. 4, Page 319–329, 1945.

Revisions and contributors Edit on Wikipedia Read on Wikipedia

View on Grokipedia

from Grokipedia

In statistics, a continuity correction (also known as the continuity correction factor) is an adjustment applied when approximating a discrete probability distribution—such as the binomial or Poisson distribution—with a continuous one, typically the normal distribution, by adding or subtracting 0.5 from the boundary values to account for the discreteness of the original variable.^[1]^[2] This technique enhances the accuracy of the approximation, particularly for probabilities involving inequalities or exact values, as the continuous distribution inherently spans all real numbers while the discrete one is limited to integers.^[1]^[3] The primary purpose of the continuity correction is to bridge the gap between the "step-like" nature of discrete distributions and the smooth curve of the normal distribution, reducing error in calculated probabilities under the Central Limit Theorem.^[1] For instance, to approximate P(X ≤ k) for a binomial random variable X, the correction adjusts it to P(Y < k + 0.5) where Y follows the approximating normal distribution with mean μ = np and variance σ² = np(1-p); similarly, P(X ≥ k) becomes P(Y > k - 0.5).^[2]^[3] This adjustment is recommended when the sample size n is sufficiently large, specifically when np ≥ 5 and n(1-p) ≥ 5, ensuring the normal approximation is valid.^[1] Without the correction, approximations can overestimate or underestimate probabilities, especially near the tails or for small n.^[4] Continuity corrections have broad applications in statistical inference, including hypothesis testing and confidence intervals. In the context of the binomial distribution, they are routinely used for large n to compute cumulative probabilities efficiently without exact methods.^[1] A related form, known as Yates' continuity correction, applies specifically to the chi-squared test of independence in 2×2 contingency tables by subtracting 0.5 from the absolute differences in expected and observed frequencies, improving accuracy when degrees of freedom equal 1 and sample sizes are small.^[5] Proposed by Frank Yates in 1934 as an ad-hoc improvement, this variant addresses inflation in test statistics due to discreteness.^[4] Overall, while modern computational tools often allow exact calculations, continuity corrections remain valuable for hand computations and theoretical analyses.^[4]

Fundamentals

Definition and Purpose

Continuity correction is a statistical adjustment applied when approximating a discrete probability distribution, which assigns probabilities to specific points (e.g.,

P(X = k)

for integer values of

k

), with a continuous distribution that uses probability densities over intervals. This discreteness causes inherent errors in approximations, such as using the normal distribution to model binomial outcomes, because the continuous density spreads probability continuously while the discrete distribution concentrates it at points. Without correction, the approximation tends to underestimate probabilities near boundaries or in tails.^[6] The primary purpose of continuity correction is to refine these approximations by bridging the gap between discrete and continuous models, typically by expanding or shifting the integration limits by 0.5 units to account for the "width" of each discrete point as if it were a unit interval. This adjustment is particularly useful for normal approximations to discrete distributions like the binomial or Poisson, enhancing accuracy in probability calculations, hypothesis tests, and confidence intervals for moderate sample sizes where exact computation is feasible but cumbersome. In practice, for cumulative probabilities like

P(X \leq k)

, one computes

P(X \leq k + 0.5)

under the continuous distribution, and similarly for other inequalities.^[3]^[2] A general formulation for approximating a point probability is

P(X = k) \approx \int_{k-0.5}^{k+0.5} f(x) \, dx

, where

f(x)

is the probability density function of the continuous approximating distribution (e.g., normal). This integral represents the area under the continuous curve over the interval centered at

k

with width 1, mimicking the discrete mass at that point. The technique traces its origins to early 19th-century efforts to improve normal approximations to the binomial, with systematic development in the 20th century, including Feller's influential analysis of its mathematical justification in 1957 and Yates' 1934 proposal for related corrections in chi-square tests.^[6]^[7]^[8] By reducing systematic bias, continuity correction improves estimates in central and tail regions; for instance, in binomial settings with

n=20

and

p=0.4

, the uncorrected normal approximation for

P(X \leq 7)

yields 0.3240 versus the exact 0.4177, while the corrected version yields 0.4046, closer to the true value. This makes it valuable for practical applications where sample sizes are not extremely large, though its benefits diminish as

n

increases and the central limit theorem provides better inherent accuracy.^[6]

Mathematical Basis

The continuity correction originates from the conceptual modeling of a discrete random variable's probability mass at each integer point

k

as being uniformly distributed over the interval

[k - 0.5, k + 0.5]

of width 1, centered at the integer. This uniform distribution assumption treats the discrete steps as continuous intervals, justifying a shift of

\pm 0.5

in the boundaries to align the discrete cumulative distribution function (CDF) with its continuous approximation. Under this framework, the probability mass

P(X = k)

is equated to the integral of a uniform density of height 1 over that interval, which integrates to 1, providing a natural bridge between discrete and continuous representations.^[3] For a general discrete integer-valued random variable

X

, the probability

P(a \leq X \leq b)

where

a

and

b

are integers is approximated by

P(a - 0.5 < Y \leq b + 0.5)

, with

Y

following the continuous approximating distribution (typically normal for large samples). This adjustment accounts for the "half-unit" on either side of the discrete points, effectively smoothing the step function of the discrete CDF to better match the continuous CDF.^[9] A proof sketch for the point mass approximation illustrates this: for a degenerate discrete distribution with

P(X = k) = 1

, the equivalent continuous model spreads this mass uniformly over

[k - 0.5, k + 0.5]

with density

f(y) = 1

for

y \in [k - 0.5, k + 0.5]

and 0 elsewhere, yielding

\int_{k-0.5}^{k+0.5} f(y) \, dy = 1

, which exactly matches the discrete probability. For non-degenerate cases, the local density of the approximating continuous distribution integrated over each such interval

\int_{k-0.5}^{k+0.5} f_Y(y) \, dy

approximates

P(X = k)

, with the

\pm 0.5

shift ensuring the intervals capture the full mass without overlap or gap under the uniformity assumption.^[3] The Euler-Maclaurin formula provides a rigorous basis for error analysis in this approximation, expressing the difference between a sum (discrete probabilities) and an integral (continuous) as a series involving Bernoulli numbers and derivatives of the density. Without correction, the normal approximation to the binomial CDF incurs an error of order

O(1/\sqrt{n})

O(1/n

) by the Berry-Esseen theorem; the continuity correction absorbs the leading oscillatory term in the Euler-Maclaurin expansion, reducing the error to $O(1/n)$ for probabilities bounded away from 0 and 1.^[10] (Petrov, 1975, on sums of independent variables and Edgeworth expansions via Euler-Maclaurin) Numerical comparisons demonstrate this improvement: for a binomial distribution with n=20, p=0.5, the exact P(8 ≤ X ≤ 12) ≈ 0.7370; the uncorrected normal approximation yields 0.6290 (error ≈ 0.108), while the corrected version gives 0.7373 (error ≈ 0.0003), showing markedly higher accuracy near the mean where p ≈ 0.5.^[9]

Approximations for Specific Distributions

Binomial Distribution

The binomial distribution describes the number of successes in a fixed number of independent Bernoulli trials, each with success probability

p

. For a random variable

X \sim \operatorname{Bin}(n, p)

, the normal approximation uses

Y \sim \mathcal{N}(np, np(1-p))

when

n

is large, providing a continuous surrogate for the discrete binomial probabilities.^[1] To improve accuracy in this approximation, the continuity correction adjusts the boundaries to account for the discreteness of

X

. For the probability of an exact value,

P(X = k)

is approximated as

P(k - 0.5 < Y < k + 0.5)

. For cumulative probabilities,

P(X \leq k) \approx P(Y \leq k + 0.5)

and

P(X \geq k) \approx P(Y \geq k - 0.5)

. These adjustments effectively add or subtract half a unit to align the continuous density with the discrete mass at integer points.^[1]^[2] Consider an example with

n = 20

trials and

p = 0.5

, so

\mu = np = 10

and

\sigma = \sqrt{np(1-p)} = \sqrt{5} \approx 2.236

σ=np(1−p)

≈2.236. The exact $P(X = 10) = \binom{20}{10} (0.5)^{20} \approx 0.1762$ . Without continuity correction, a basic approximation uses the normal density at 10: $\phi\left(\frac{10-10}{\sigma}\right) \cdot 1 \approx \frac{1}{\sigma \sqrt{2\pi}} \approx 0.1784$

1≈0.1784, yielding an absolute error of about 0.0022. With correction, $P(9.5 < Y < 10.5) = \Phi\left(\frac{0.5}{\sigma}\right) - \Phi\left(\frac{-0.5}{\sigma}\right) = 2\Phi(0.2236) - 1 \approx 0.1766$ , reducing the error to about 0.0004—an improvement of roughly 82% in absolute error.^[11]^[2] A related variant, known as Yates' correction, applies continuity correction in the chi-square test for independence in 2×2 contingency tables, which often involve binomial counts. Here, the test statistic modifies the usual Pearson chi-square by subtracting 0.5 from the absolute difference between observed and expected frequencies: $\chi^2 = \sum \frac{(|O - E| - 0.5)^2}{E}$ . This adjustment reduces overestimation of significance in small samples.^[12]^[13] The continuity correction for the binomial-normal approximation is reasonably accurate when $np \geq 5$ and $n(1-p) \geq 5$ , ensuring the distribution is not too skewed and the normal shape is appropriate.^[1]

Poisson Distribution

The Poisson distribution models the number of independent events occurring within a fixed interval, characterized by a single parameter λ representing the average rate of occurrence. For large λ, typically λ ≥ 10, the distribution of a random variable X ~ Pois(λ) can be approximated by a normal distribution Y ~ N(λ, λ) via the central limit theorem, as the Poisson arises from the sum of many rare events.^[14]^[15] Continuity correction enhances the accuracy of this normal approximation by adjusting for the discrete nature of the Poisson against the continuous normal. Specifically, the probability P(X = k) is approximated as P(k - 0.5 < Y < k + 0.5), while for cumulative probabilities, P(X ≤ k) ≈ P(Y ≤ k + 0.5) and P(X ≥ k) ≈ P(Y ≥ k - 0.5). This adjustment accounts for the fact that the discrete probability mass at integer k corresponds to an interval of width 1 in the continuous approximation.^[14]^[15] For illustration, consider λ = 15 and the left-tail probability P(X ≤ 10). The exact value is 0.118. Without correction, the normal approximation yields P(Y ≤ 10) = Φ((10 - 15)/√15) ≈ Φ(-1.29) ≈ 0.098. With correction, it becomes P(Y ≤ 10.5) = Φ((10.5 - 15)/√15) ≈ Φ(-1.16) ≈ 0.123, which is closer to the exact probability and demonstrates the correction's benefit in improving tail accuracy.^[14] The Poisson distribution emerges as the limit of the binomial distribution when the number of trials n → ∞ and success probability p → 0 with np = λ fixed, so the continuity correction applicable to the binomial normal approximation naturally extends to the Poisson case.^[15] However, for small λ (< 5), the Poisson is markedly skewed, rendering the normal approximation (even with correction) unreliable; in such scenarios, exact Poisson probabilities should be computed directly using the probability mass function.^[14]

Practical Applications

Hypothesis Testing

In hypothesis testing involving discrete data, such as binomial or multinomial distributions, continuity correction refines the normal approximation to better account for the discreteness, leading to more accurate p-value computations and improved control of error rates. This adjustment is particularly valuable in z-tests for proportions and chi-square tests, where uncorrected approximations can inflate type I error rates, especially with small sample sizes or low expected frequencies. By effectively "smoothing" the discrete steps, the correction enhances the reliability of decisions about the null hypothesis without altering the underlying test structure.^[16] For the one-sample z-test of a binomial proportion under the null hypothesis

H_0: p = p_0

, the uncorrected test statistic is

z = \frac{\hat{p} - p_0}{\sqrt{p_0(1-p_0)/n}}

z=p0(1−p0)/n

p^−p0, where $\hat{p}$ is the sample proportion and $n$ is the sample size. The continuity correction adjusts this by modifying the numerator to $|\hat{p} - p_0| - 0.5/n$ , yielding the corrected statistic $z_{\text{corr}} = \frac{||\hat{p} - p_0| - 0.5/n|}{\sqrt{p_0(1-p_0)/n}}$

∣∣p^−p0∣−0.5/n∣; the p-value is then derived from the standard normal distribution using $|z_{\text{corr}}|$ . This adjustment aligns the continuous normal tail probabilities more closely with the discrete binomial probabilities under the null. Consider testing $H_0: p = 0.5$ with $n = 100$ and $\hat{p} = 0.55$ (55 successes). The uncorrected $z = (0.55 - 0.5)/\sqrt{0.5 \cdot 0.5 / 100} = 1$

=1, giving a two-sided p-value of approximately 0.317. With continuity correction, the adjusted difference is $|0.55 - 0.5| - 0.5/100 = 0.045$ , so $z_{\text{corr}} = 0.045 / 0.05 = 0.9$ , and the two-sided p-value is approximately 0.368, which is less likely to reject the null erroneously.^[3] In the chi-square goodness-of-fit test, Yates' continuity correction addresses the approximation's bias for discrete contingency tables by subtracting 0.5 from each absolute deviation before squaring: $\chi^2_{\text{Yates}} = \sum \frac{(|O_i - E_i| - 0.5)^2}{E_i}$ , where $O_i$ and $E_i$ are observed and expected frequencies. This modification is recommended when any expected frequency is below 5, as it reduces overestimation of significance in 2x2 tables or similar low-degree-of-freedom cases./09:_Categorical_Data/9.3:_Yates_continuity_correction) For the two-sample z-test of proportions, comparing $p_1$ and $p_2$ under $H_0: p_1 = p_2$ , the corrected test statistic uses the pooled standard error $SE = \sqrt{\hat{p}(1-\hat{p})(1/n_1 + 1/n_2)}$

, where $\hat{p}$ is the pooled proportion, and adjusts the numerator as $|\hat{p}_1 - \hat{p}_2| - 0.5(1/n_1 + 1/n_2)$ , resulting in $z_{\text{corr}} = \frac{||\hat{p}_1 - \hat{p}_2| - 0.5(1/n_1 + 1/n_2)|}{SE}$ . This ensures the normal approximation better matches the discrete nature of the binomial counts from each sample.^[17] Overall, continuity correction improves type I error control in these discrete settings by bringing the actual rejection rate closer to the nominal level (e.g., 0.05), particularly when expected frequencies are small (under 5-10), mitigating the conservative or anti-conservative biases of uncorrected tests. Simulations and theoretical analyses show that without correction, type I error can exceed the nominal rate by up to 1.5 times in binomial approximations, while the correction reduces this discrepancy effectively for moderate sample sizes.^[18]

Confidence Intervals

Continuity correction enhances the accuracy of normal-based confidence intervals for parameters of discrete distributions, such as binomial proportions and Poisson rates, by accounting for the discreteness of the underlying data. This adjustment typically involves shifting the observed count by ±0.5 before applying the standard normal approximation, which improves coverage probabilities, particularly when the parameter is near the boundaries of 0 or 1. For binomial proportions, two common approaches incorporate continuity correction: the simple normal approximation with boundary shift and the Wilson score interval adapted for continuity. These methods yield intervals with more reliable frequentist coverage compared to uncorrected versions, especially for moderate sample sizes.^[19]^[20] For a binomial proportion

\hat{p} = X/n

, where

X

is the number of successes in

n

trials, the simple normal approximation with continuity correction constructs the confidence interval by adjusting the bounds as follows:

\text{Lower bound} \approx \hat{p} - z^* \sqrt{\frac{\hat{p}(1 - \hat{p})}{n}} - \frac{0.5}{n}, \quad \text{Upper bound} \approx \hat{p} + z^* \sqrt{\frac{\hat{p}(1 - \hat{p})}{n}} + \frac{0.5}{n},

Lower bound≈p^−z∗np^(1−p^)

−n0.5,Upper bound≈p^+z∗np^(1−p^)

+n0.5, where $z^*$ is the critical value from the standard normal distribution (e.g., 1.96 for 95% confidence). This shifts the interval outward by half a unit per trial, preventing undercoverage near the edges. Alternatively, the Wilson score interval can be adapted with continuity correction by adding or subtracting 0.5 from $X$ in the quadratic formula derivation, resulting in: $\tilde{p} = \frac{X + z^{*2}/2 \pm 0.5}{n + z^{*2}}, \quad \text{margin} = z^* \sqrt{\frac{X(n - X)/n + z^{*2}/4}{(n + z^{*2})^2}} \pm \frac{0.5}{n + z^{*2}},$

±n+z∗20.5, though the exact implementation varies slightly across formulations; this adapted version maintains the inverted normal test structure while incorporating the correction for better alignment with the discrete distribution. Newcombe's evaluation of seven methods highlights that the continuity-corrected Wilson score interval often provides superior coverage for small to moderate $n$ , outperforming the uncorrected Wald interval in terms of reducing erratic coverage probabilities.^[20]^[19] For the Poisson rate $\lambda$ based on observed count $X$ , continuity correction can be applied via a normal approximation with adjustment: $\text{Lower bound} \approx X - z^* \sqrt{X} - 0.5, \quad \text{Upper bound} \approx X + z^* \sqrt{X} + 0.5,$

−0.5,Upper bound≈X+z∗X

+0.5, or through the variance-stabilizing transformation $\sqrt{X + 0.5} \pm z^*/2$

±z∗/2, followed by squaring to obtain bounds for $\lambda$ . The latter approach, akin to a modified Anscombe transformation, yields: $\text{Lower bound} = \left( \sqrt{X + 0.5} - \frac{z^*}{2} \right)^2, \quad \text{Upper bound} = \left( \sqrt{X + 0.5} + \frac{z^*}{2} \right)^2$

−2z∗)2,Upper bound=(X+0.5

+2z∗)2 (with care for $X = 0$ ), providing intervals with variance approximately 1/4 after transformation. Comparative studies confirm that these corrected methods achieve coverage closer to the nominal level than uncorrected approximations, particularly for small $\lambda$ .^[21] Consider a 95% confidence interval for a binomial proportion with $n = 50$ and $X = 20$ successes ( $\hat{p} = 0.4$ ). The uncorrected Wald interval is approximately (0.264, 0.536), with width 0.272. Applying the simple continuity correction shifts the bounds to (0.254, 0.546), adjusting for discreteness and yielding a slightly refined estimate with improved coverage in simulation studies. The continuity-corrected Wilson interval for the same data is approximately (0.275, 0.539), narrower than the simple corrected version while maintaining better tail coverage than the uncorrected Wald.^[20]^[19] These corrections offer key advantages in coverage probability, especially near 0 or 1, where uncorrected intervals often undercover due to the skewness and discreteness of the distributions; the outward shift reduces overcoverage in the tails and ensures more conservative, reliable bounds for inference. Brown, Cai, and DasGupta's analysis underscores that while exact methods exist, continuity-corrected approximations provide a practical balance of simplicity and accuracy for many applications.^[19]^[20]

Limitations and Extensions

When to Apply or Avoid

Continuity correction is generally recommended when approximating discrete distributions like the binomial or Poisson with the normal distribution under moderate conditions, specifically for the binomial when

np \geq 5

and

n(1-p) \geq 5

, ensuring the target probabilities are not extreme (i.e., away from 0 or 1).^[3] For the Poisson distribution, it is advisable to apply the correction when the mean parameter

\lambda > 10

, as the normal approximation becomes reliable in this regime.^[22] These guidelines help mitigate the discretization error inherent in the approximation, improving accuracy for tail and central probabilities without overcomplicating computations. The correction should be avoided in cases of small sample sizes or parameters, such as

n < 5-10

for the binomial or

\lambda < 5-10

for the Poisson, where exact methods or simulations provide superior precision and the normal approximation itself is inadequate. Similarly, for very large

n

\lambda

(e.g.,

n > 1000

), the correction becomes negligible as the discrete distribution closely mirrors the continuous one, rendering the adjustment unnecessary and potentially introducing minor biases.^[3] In such scenarios, relying on the uncorrected normal approximation or more advanced techniques like simulations is preferable to maintain efficiency.^[14] Simulation studies demonstrate the practical benefits of continuity correction, particularly Yates' method, which can reduce the mean squared error (MSE) in probability estimates for moderate

n

in binomial settings. In software implementations, continuity correction is readily available or easily applied. In R, pbinom computes the exact binomial CDF without built-in continuity correction; for normal approximations, adjust boundaries manually (e.g., evaluating at

k + 0.5

). Yates' correction is available in chisq.test for chi-squared tests of independence. Python's SciPy library, via scipy.stats.binom.cdf, does not have a built-in flag but supports manual implementation by adjusting the boundary (e.g., evaluating at

k + 0.5

) to achieve the same effect.^[23] Similar adjustments apply to Poisson functions like ppois in R or scipy.stats.poisson.cdf in Python.^[24] A common pitfall is overapplying continuity correction to approximations beyond normal distributions, such as discrete uniform or other non-normal continuous proxies, where the adjustment lacks theoretical justification and can distort results.^[25] Additionally, applying it indiscriminately to extreme tail probabilities in binomial or Poisson settings may exacerbate errors rather than reduce them, as the correction assumes moderate skewness. Practitioners should always verify the approximation conditions before use to avoid such inaccuracies. Several advanced techniques serve as refinements or alternatives to the continuity correction, which provides a basic first-order adjustment (±0.5 shift) to the normal approximation for discrete distributions like the binomial or Poisson. These methods aim to improve accuracy, particularly for small samples, asymmetric cases, or heavy-tailed distributions, by incorporating higher-order terms, non-parametric resampling, or alternative smoothing approaches.^[26] The saddlepoint approximation offers a higher-order refinement to the normal approximation for discrete distributions, embedding the discrete probability mass function into a continuous density without relying on a fixed ±0.5 shift. Developed from the work of Daniels (1954), it uses the cumulant generating function to locate a "saddlepoint" that minimizes the approximation error, achieving relative accuracy of O(n^{-1}) for the tail probabilities of sums of independent random variables. For discrete data, such as lattice distributions, the saddlepoint method acts as a smoother by approximating the point masses with a continuous density over the support's convex hull, providing superior performance over the continuity-corrected normal in conditional inference and for moderate sample sizes. This approach incorporates skewness and higher moments naturally, making it particularly effective for asymmetric discrete distributions without the ad hoc adjustment of continuity correction. The Edgeworth expansion extends the normal approximation through a series correction based on cumulants, offering greater precision for discrete distributions than the simple continuity correction, especially in asymmetric settings. It refines the central limit theorem by adding terms that account for skewness (third cumulant) and kurtosis (fourth cumulant), with the expansion evaluated at continuity points of the discrete distribution to approximate cumulative probabilities. For lattice distributions, an optimal continuity correction θ^* within the Edgeworth series minimizes the residual error, outperforming the standard 0.5 shift in estimating tail probabilities near 0 or 1, as demonstrated in numerical studies for sums of independent discrete variables. This method is particularly valuable for small to moderate samples where asymmetry distorts the basic normal approximation, though it requires knowledge of higher moments.^[26] An alternative adjustment, the mid-p method, modifies p-values for exact tests on discrete data by subtracting half the probability of the observed point from the one-sided tail probability, providing a less conservative alternative to the continuity correction in normal approximations. Introduced by Lancaster (1961) for significance tests in discrete distributions, it is defined for a test statistic W as p_{mid} = \sum_{w > W} P(W = w) + \frac{1}{2} P(W = W_{obs}), which averages the discrete and continuous interpretations at boundaries. Unlike the fixed ±0.5 shift, the mid-p adjustment uses half the point mass, improving power while keeping type I error rates close to nominal levels in applications like Fisher's exact test for 2×2 tables. It is especially useful for small samples in contingency table analysis, where continuity correction can overcorrect and reduce power. Bootstrap methods provide a non-parametric alternative through resampling, avoiding parametric assumptions like those in continuity correction and instead estimating the distribution of a statistic directly from the data. As outlined by Efron (1979), the bootstrap resamples with replacement from the observed discrete data to approximate the sampling distribution, generating empirical confidence intervals or p-values without continuity adjustments. For discrete distributions such as the binomial, it handles ties and sparsity effectively by preserving the empirical measure, offering accuracy comparable to or better than parametric approximations in small samples with heavy tails. This approach is computationally intensive but flexible, excelling in scenarios where higher moments are unknown or distributions are complex. In comparison, the continuity correction serves as a simple, first-order fix to mitigate discreteness in normal approximations, but methods like saddlepoint and Edgeworth expansions provide higher-order accuracy by incorporating cumulants for skewness and beyond, ideal for asymmetric or small-sample cases. The mid-p adjustment offers a targeted boundary correction for exact tests, while bootstrap methods bypass parametric forms altogether, making them robust for non-standard discrete data with heavy tails, though at higher computational cost. These techniques complement the continuity correction by addressing its limitations in precision and applicability.^[26]

Info Pages

Talk Pages

Special Pages

Continuity correction

Recent from talks

Recent from talks

Contribute something

Contribute something

Media Pages

Timelines

Articles

Notes collections

Notes

Notes

Days in Chronicle

Continuity correction