The discussion centers on analyzing the effectiveness of two screening tools for a disorder, where Tool A referred 34 children and Tool B referred 16 children out of a total of 51 tested. The primary statistical method suggested for analysis is the paired t-test; however, due to the binary nature of the results (pass or fail), participants recommend using McNemar's test as a more appropriate method. The two-proportion z-test was also mentioned, but concerns about correlation between samples led to the preference for nonparametric methods. Users shared resources, including a YouTube tutorial for conducting McNemar's test in SPSS.
PREREQUISITESStatisticians, researchers in psychology or education, and anyone involved in analyzing screening tools for disorders will benefit from this discussion.
Yankel said:If I get you right, for each kid you have two samples, one for each tool. Both numbers are continuous and you want to compare the tools ? If so, paired t test
mermaidrunner said:Yes, that is correct. Each kid has a result from each tool. There were 51 total kids tested. My main concern is that these screening tools aren't scored on a numerical scale. It is strictly pass or fail - is that going to have an impact on using the paired t test? Should I be looking at something more nonparametrical?
I like Serena said:Hi mermaidrunner. Welcome to MHB!
That sounds like a two-proportion z-test, pooled for $H_0\colon p_1=p_2$.
See for instance this wiki page.