The normal approximation to the binomial
◈ 4 cardsWhen np ≥ 5 and n(1 − p) ≥ 5, X ~ Bin(n, p) is close to N(np, np(1 − p)); apply the ±0.5 continuity correction, then standardise and read the table.
A binomial with a hundred terms
Northfield Credit sends 100 payment reminders a month, and historically 30 % of reminders are answered within a week. = the number answered within a week is . The credit manager wants . Module 6's route — sum 26 pmf terms with in each — is not a hand calculation. But a binomial with many trials is bell-shaped, and the normal can stand in for it.
The conditions and the parameters
The approximation is acceptable when
— enough expected successes and enough expected failures for the bell not to be cut off at 0 or at . Here and ; both pass. The approximating normal takes the binomial's own mean and variance (L6.4):
so .
The continuity correction
is a count; the normal is continuous. On the binomial, "" is the bar at 25 and everything below it. On the normal, the bar at 25 is the strip from 24.5 to 25.5 — so "" must become "" to keep the whole bar. This ±0.5 continuity correction moves the boundary half a unit away from the region you are keeping:
| Binomial | Normal |
|---|---|
The boundary discipline of Module 6 returns: and are the same binomial event and both become 25.5.
Worked example
The exact binomial sum is 0.1631 — the approximation is off by four in the fourth decimal. Without the correction, and : off by 0.025, a visibly wrong answer. The half-unit is what makes the approximation usable at this .
For the upper tail, "at least 36 answered": ,
(exact 0.1161).
Which version to state
IBS1 presents the approximation without the correction; IS1 and the course use it. On the paper, write the corrected boundary explicitly — "" — so the marker sees which convention you applied. Module 12 approximates the sample proportion the same way, with the same conditions, but there the correction is dropped, because is treated as a mean rather than a count.