Talk:Continuity correction

It's darn useful that this article brought my attention to this issue, as I have a binomial implementation which appears to delegate to Poisson without the correction.

Aside from the lack of references, an expert might add a sentence or two motivating why the continuity correction is required. MaxEnt 20:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking into this a little deeper.

It's not that I don't find the geometric argument compelling, it's that I don't find it obvious that the 'corrected' function dominates the uncorrected function (ie. that the CC normal curve is better approx. to the binomial than un-CC normal for all integers x); nor is it obvious there is anything wrong with the implied binomial mass distribution for un-CC; is it not that CC dominates non-CC everywhere except finitely many exceptions? Is that the point of this? MaxEnt 23:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I thought it was obvious why the corrected version is better than the uncorrected normal. Maybe I'll add something explicit on this. But I don't understand what is meant by the following words:

nor is it obvious there is anything wrong with the implied binomial mass distribution for un-CC

What does that mean?? Michael Hardy 00:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Continuity correction for x < np and for x > np

It seems there is a different CC depending on where the characteristic of interest x falls with respect to the Binomial mean. When x < np (is below the mean) the correction is to add .5 to x. When x > np the correction is to subtract .5 from x. In either case this brings the z-score of interest closer to the mean. Then when testing, the area in the corresponding tail will be bigger. My textbook had the second one wrong in one of two places, finally figured its error was in its Summary of Formulas for Chapter 5, and correct under Correction for Continuity, Ch. 5.5. Nothing in another text, nor in the first 4 - 6 links of my search (including this, link 2), so I am placing it here. Hope you include it. Figured it out (which equation was the correct one and what it meant) partly by way of the example in the text. Biostatistics A Foundation for Analysis in the Health Sciences, 10th edition, c. 2013, Daniel, Wayne W. and Cross, Chad L., pub. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.211.51.26 (talk) 19:55, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]