1 / 32

Non-parametric test (distribution-free) Nominal level dependent measure

Chi-Square. Non-parametric test (distribution-free) Nominal level dependent measure. Categorical Variables. Generally the count of objects falling in each of several categories. Examples: number of fraternity, sorority, and nonaffiliated members of a class

katy
Download Presentation

Non-parametric test (distribution-free) Nominal level dependent measure

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Chi-Square Non-parametric test (distribution-free) Nominal level dependent measure

  2. Categorical Variables • Generally the count of objects falling in each of several categories. • Examples: • number of fraternity, sorority, and nonaffiliated members of a class • number of students choosing answers: 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 • Emphasis on frequency in each category

  3. One-way Classification • Observations sorted on only one dimension • Example: • Observe children and count red, green, yellow, or orange Jello choices • Are these colors chosen equally often, or is there a preference for one over the other? Cont.

  4. One-way--cont. • Want to compare observed frequencies with frequencies predicted by null hypothesis • Chi-square test used to compare expected and observed • Called goodness-of-fit chi-square (c2)

  5. Goodness-of-Fit Chi-square • Fombonne (1989) Season of birth and childhood psychosis • Are children born at particular times of year more likely to be diagnosed with childhood psychosis • He knew the % normal children born in each month • e.g. .8.4% normal children born in January

  6. Fombonne’s Data

  7. Chi-Square (c2) • Compare Observed (O) with Expected (E) • Take size of E into account • With large E, a large (O-E) is not unusual. • With small E, a large (O-E) is unusual.

  8. Calculation of c2 2.05(11) = 19.68

  9. Conclusions • Obtained 2= 14.58 • df = c - 1, where c = # categories • Critical value of 2 on 11 df = 19.68 • Since 19.68 > 14.58, do not reject H0 • Conclude that birth month distribution of children with psychoses doesn’t differ from normal.

  10. Jello Choices • Red Green Yellow Orange • 35 20 25 20 • Is there a significant preference for one color of jello over other colors?

  11. Red Green Yellow Orange O: 35 20 25 20 E: 25 25 25 25 X2 = (35-25)2/25 + (20-25)2/25 + (25-25)2/25 + (20-25)2/25= 6 There was not one jello color chosen significantly more often than any other jello color, X2 (3, N= 100) = 6, p > .05

  12. Contingency Tables • Two independent variables • Are men happier than women? • Male vs. Female X Happy vs Not Happy • Intimacy (Yes/No) X Depression/Nondepression

  13. Intimacy and Depression • Everitt & Smith (1979) • Asked depressed and non-depressed women about intimacy with boyfriend/husband • Data on next slide

  14. Data

  15. Chi-Square on Contingency Table • Same formula • Expected frequencies • E = RT X CT GT • RT = Row total, CT = Column total, GT = Grand total

  16. Expected Frequencies • E11 = 37*138/419 = 12.19 • E12 = 37*281/419 = 24.81 • E21 = 382*138/419 = 125.81 • E22 = 382*281/419 = 256.19 • Enter on following table

  17. Observed and Expected Freq.

  18. Chi-Square Calculation

  19. Degrees of Freedom • For contingency table, df = (R - 1)(C - 1) • For our example this is (2 - 1)(2 - 1) = 1 • Note that knowing any one cell and the marginal totals, you could reconstruct all other cells.

  20. Conclusions • Since 25.61 > 3.84, reject H0 • Conclude that depression and intimacy are not independent. • How one responds to “satisfaction with intimacy” depends on whether they are depressed. • Could be depression-->dissatisfaction, lack of intimacy --> depression, depressed people see world as not meeting needs, etc.

  21. Larger Contingency Tables • Jankowski & Leitenberg (pers. comm.) • Does abuse continue? • Do adults who are, and are not, being abused differ in childhood history of abuse? • One variable = adult abuse (yes or no) • Other variable = number of abuse categories (out of 4) suffered as children • Sexual, Physical, Alcohol, or Personal violence

  22. Chi-Square Calculation

  23. Conclusions • 29.62 > 7.82 • Reject H0 • Conclude that adult abuse is related to childhood abuse • Increasing levels of childhood abuse are associated with greater levels of adult abuse. • e.g. Approximately 10% of nonabused children are later abused as adults. Cont.

  24. Nonindependent Observations • We require that observations be independent. • Only one score from each respondent • Sum of frequencies must equal number of respondents • If we don’t have independence of observations, test is not valid.

  25. Small Expected Frequencies • Rule of thumb: E> 5 in each cell • Not firm rule • Violated in earlier example, but probably not a problem • More of a problem in tables with few cells. • Never have expected frequency of 0. • Collapse adjacent cells if necessary. Cont.

  26. Expected Frequencies--cont. • More of a problem in tables with few cells. • Never have expected frequency of 0. • Collapse adjacent cells if necessary.

  27. Effect Size • Phi and Cramer’s Phi • Define N and k • Not limited to 2X2 tables Cont.

  28. Effect Size—cont. • Everitt & cc data Cont.

  29. Effect Size—Odss Ratio. • Odds Dep|Lack Intimacy • 26/112 = .232 • Odds Dep | No Lack • 11/270 = .041 • Odds Ratio = .232/.041 = 5.69 • Odds Depressed = 5.69 times great if experiencing lack of intimacy.

  30. Effect Size—Risk Ratio. • Risk Depression/Lack Intimacy • 26/138 = .188 • Risk Depression | No Lack • 11/281 = .039 • Odds Ratio = .188/.039 = 4.83 • Risk of Depressed = 4.83 times greater if experiencing lack of intimacy.

More Related