Recipe
Approximate a probability for a sample proportion
Use when: you know a population proportion p and a sample size n, and need either the shape of \hat p's sampling distribution or a probability involving \hat p
Goal: the normal approximation's mean and standard error for \hat p, and, if needed, a probability found by standardizing and reading \Phi
Taught in The sampling distribution of a proportion
Quick recipe
-
1
Confirm np and n(1-p) are both comfortably large, a common rule of thumb being at least 10 each, before treating \hat p's sampling distribution as approximately normal.
Example
p=0.25, n=150: np=37.5 and n(1-p)=112.5, both well above 10.
Why: the normal approximation is exactly that, an approximation, and it only holds up once the underlying binomial count is large enough to look bell-shaped.
-
2
The mean of the sampling distribution is p itself; its standard error is \sqrt{p(1-p)/n}. Compute both, using the same n just checked in Step 1.
Example
Mean: 0.25. SE = \sqrt{0.25(0.75)/150} = \sqrt{0.00125} \approx 0.03536.
Why: this is the normal approximation this section derives, \hat p \approx \operatorname{Normal}(p,\ \sqrt{p(1-p)/n}), and every later step depends on having these two numbers right.
-
3
Check what the question is actually asking for before doing any more arithmetic.
Example
c=0.30: z = (0.30-0.25)/0.03536 \approx 1.414.
- the question only asks for the sampling distribution itself (its shape or parameters) — stop here, Step 2's mean and SE ARE the answer.
- the question asks for a probability involving \hat p, such as P(\hat p>c) for some cutoff c — subtract the Step 2 mean from c and divide by the Step 2 SE to get a z-score, then continue to Step 4.
Why: this is the same standardization the course already taught for any normal distribution. Subtract the mean, then divide by the standard deviation of the CORRECT distribution: here, that's \hat p's own sampling distribution, rather than a single observation's.
-
4
Read \Phi(z) from the standard normal distribution, then combine it with the direction the question actually asks for: P(\hat p>c)=1-\Phi(z), or P(\hat p<c)=\Phi(z).
Example
\Phi(1.414) \approx 0.9214, so P(\hat p>0.30) \approx 1-0.9214 = 0.0786, about 7.9\%.
Why: \Phi always reports the probability of falling BELOW the z-score; matching that to "above" or "below" the actual question is what a reader most often gets backward.
Common mistakes
- Skipping the Step 1 large-sample check and applying the normal approximation where np or n(1-p) is small.
- Standardizing with \sigma, a single observation's spread, instead of \hat p's own standard error from Step 2.
- Reading \Phi(z) correctly but reporting it for "greater than" when the question asked for "less than," or the reverse.
- Forgetting to convert a stated percentage (e.g. "40%") into the decimal p=0.4 before plugging into the SE formula.