ELECTRONIC FIELD SURVEY TABLES

Version 1.0
The spreadsheets contained in this workbook represent direct calculations of each
of the tables in Livestock Disease Surveys. A Field Manual for Veterinarians.
by Cannon and Roe (Bureau of Rural Science, Department of Primary Industry 1982)

The motivation for producing this workbook arose for several reasons, in particular the
fact that Cannon and Roe is now out of print, and both authors have 'retired', the
desire to generate specific answers not dependent on tables or reading off graphs,
and to put the functionality of Cannon and Roe into the hands of all field veterinarians.

Every attempt has been made to remain consistent with the approach taken
by Rob Cannon and Dick Roe, while using the flexibility of Excel statistical
functions, in a form that allows direct calculations, rather than table lookup.
In some cases, a table has been calculated as well, although this is more
of academic interest.

The tables are as intuitive as I can make them. In most cases, pop-up comments
indicate where/what should be placed in relevant cells. In addition, where
specific inputs are required or desirable, drop-down boxes offer a range of choices.

I wish to thank Tony Martin, and Mario D'Antuono for their kind assistance
in producing this workbook.
DEDICATION
Chris Hawkins This workbook is dedicated to the lifetime of service to
Veterinary Epidemiologist animal health and veterinary epidemiology provided by
WA Department of Agriculture Rob Cannon and Dick Roe, whose cooperation in the
April 2003 production of Livestock Disease Surveys lifted a great
burden from non-statistical field veterinarians!
Sample size required to detect disease
Confidence limits for number positive
Confidence 0.99 Direct calculation

Population Percentage of diseased animals in the population, OR Percentage

size (N) 1.00% sampled and found clean
1600 399

Cannon and Roe Table 1

Table format: desired confidence: 0.9

Percentage of diseased animals in the population, OR percentage sampled and found c

Population
Size (N) 50% 40% 30% 25% 20% 10% 5%
10 3 4 5 6 7 9 10
20 4 5 6 7 8 13 18
30 4 5 6 7 9 16 23
40 4 5 6 8 10 17 27
50 4 5 7 8 10 18 30
60 4 5 7 8 10 19 32
70 4 5 7 8 10 19 33
80 4 5 7 8 10 20 35
90 4 5 7 8 10 20 36
100 4 5 7 8 10 20 36
120 4 5 7 8 10 20 38
140 4 5 7 8 10 21 39
160 4 5 7 8 10 21 40
180 4 5 7 8 11 21 40
200 4 5 7 8 11 21 41
250 4 5 7 8 11 21 42
300 4 5 7 8 11 22 42
350 4 5 7 8 11 22 43
400 4 5 7 8 11 22 43
450 4 5 7 8 11 22 43
500 4 5 7 8 11 22 43
600 4 5 7 8 11 22 44
700 4 5 7 9 11 22 44
800 4 5 7 9 11 22 44
900 4 5 7 9 11 22 44
1000 4 5 7 9 11 22 44
1200 4 5 7 9 11 22 45
1400 4 5 7 9 11 22 45
1600 4 5 7 9 11 22 45
1800 4 5 7 9 11 22 45
2000 4 5 7 9 11 22 45
3000 4 5 7 9 11 22 45
4000 4 5 7 9 11 22 45
5000 4 5 7 9 11 22 45
6000 4 5 7 9 11 22 45
 7000 4 5 7 9 11 22 45
8000 4 5 7 9 11 22 45
9000 4 5 7 9 11 22 45
10000 4 5 7 9 11 22 45
"Infinite" 4 5 7 9 11 22 45
OR percentage sampled and found clean

2% 1% 0.5% 0.1%
10 10 10 10
20 20 20 20
30 30 30 30
38 40 40 40
45 50 50 50
51 59 60 60
56 68 70 70
61 76 80 80
65 83 90 90
68 90 99 100
74 102 118 120
78 113 135 140
82 122 151 160
85 130 166 180
87 137 180 200
92 150 210 250
95 160 235 300
98 168 256 350
100 175 273 399
101 180 288 448
102 184 301 495
104 191 321 587
106 196 337 674
107 200 350 755
107 203 360 830
108 205 369 900
109 209 382 1024
110 212 392 1130
110 214 400 1220
111 216 406 1299
111 217 411 1367
112 221 426 1607
113 223 434 1750
113 224 439 1845
113 225 443 1912
114 226 445 1962
114 226 447 2000
114 227 448 2031
114 227 449 2056
114 230 460 2302
 0.9
0.95
0.98
0.99

1
1
Chance of detecting positives with various intensities of monitoring

Sampling proportion: 0.2 Cannon & Roe formula, p 30

Number of positives in the population.
No.
Population Sampled 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
10 2 0.199 0.377 0.532 0.665 0.776 0.864 0.931 0.975
20 4 0.199 0.367 0.507 0.623 0.716 0.792 0.851 0.896
30 6 0.199 0.364 0.500 0.611 0.700 0.772 0.828 0.873
40 8 0.199 0.363 0.496 0.605 0.692 0.762 0.818 0.862
50 10 0.199 0.362 0.494 0.602 0.688 0.757 0.812 0.855
60 12 0.199 0.362 0.493 0.599 0.685 0.753 0.808 0.851
70 14 0.199 0.361 0.492 0.598 0.683 0.751 0.805 0.848
80 16 0.199 0.361 0.491 0.597 0.681 0.749 0.803 0.846
90 18 0.199 0.361 0.491 0.596 0.680 0.748 0.801 0.844
100 20 0.199 0.360 0.490 0.595 0.679 0.746 0.800 0.843
1000 200 0.199 0.359 0.487 0.589 0.672 0.737 0.790 0.832

Using Excel function HYPGEOMDIST Note limitations to the use of HYPGEOMDIST

Number of positives in the population
No.
Population Sampled 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
10 2 0.200 0.378 0.533 0.667 0.778 0.867 0.933 0.978
20 4 0.200 0.368 0.509 0.624 0.718 0.793 0.852 0.898
30 6 0.200 0.366 0.501 0.612 0.702 0.773 0.830 0.874
40 8 0.200 0.364 0.498 0.607 0.694 0.764 0.819 0.863
50 10 0.200 0.363 0.496 0.603 0.689 0.758 0.813 0.857
60 12 0.200 0.363 0.495 0.601 0.686 0.755 0.809 0.853
70 14 0.200 0.362 0.494 0.599 0.684 0.752 0.807 0.850
80 16 0.200 0.362 0.493 0.598 0.683 0.751 0.804 0.847
90 18 0.200 0.362 0.492 0.597 0.682 0.749 0.803 0.846
100 20 0.200 0.362 0.492 0.597 0.681 0.748 0.802 0.844
1000 200 0.200 0.360 0.488 0.591 0.673 0.739 0.791 0.833

"N/A" is inserted when the requirements of the HYPGEOMDIST function are not met.
With discretion, in such cases assume the probability of detecting at least one positive is close to 1.
onitoring

ulation. 0.05

9 10 0.1
0.997 0.997 0.15
0.930 0.955 0.2
0.907 0.934 0.25
0.896 0.923 0.3
0.890 0.916 0.35
0.885 0.912 0.4
0.882 0.909 0.45
0.880 0.907 0.5
0.878 0.905 0.55
0.877 0.904 0.6
0.866 0.893 0.65
0.7
0.75
the use of HYPGEOMDIST 0.8
ulation 0.85

9 10 0.9
N/A N/A 0.95
0.932 0.957
0.909 0.935
0.897 0.924
0.891 0.917
0.887 0.913
0.884 0.910
0.881 0.908
0.879 0.906
0.878 0.905
0.867 0.894

on are not met.

positive is close to 1.
 Probability of Failure to Detect Disease at a Given Prevalence
Assumes sampling from a very large population.

Number of animals in the sample tested

Prevalence 5 10 15 20 25 50 75 100 200 250
0.01 0.951 0.904 0.860 0.818 0.778 0.605 0.471 0.366 0.134 0.081

Hint: vary the prevalence as you wish; alter the number of animals as required.
 500 1000
0.007 0.000
Sample size for estimation of disease prevalence

Level of confidence 0.99

Expected Desired
Prevalence accuracy 0.1 0.05 0.01 0
0.01 7 26 657 65685

Finite Population Correction

Populaton size: 1600
7 26 466 1562
BINOMIAL CONFIDENCE LIMITS
Estimating disease prevalence Upper Lower Two sided
Limits: 0.99 0.01 98%

Sample size: 134 Number positive: 5

Proportion positive: 0.04 Proportion of the pop'n sampled: 0.5

Limits* Corrected Critbinom

Upper 0.095 0.067 11
Lower 0.010 0.007 1

N/C Not calculated

*See Agresti A, and Coull BA (1998) Approximate is Better than "Exact" for Interval Estimation
of Binomial Proportions. The American Statistician 52:(2) 119-126