Crosstabulations: Quick Notes

Describe the table

-table number, independent (explanatory) variable, dependent (response) variable
TI
2-way (x3,x1)
TII 2-way (x3,x2)
TIII 3-way (x1(x3,x2))

presumed independent variable is the column variable (x1) & dependant x3

another presumed independent variable in column (x2)
re examining TII (x2) while holding for original (x1)

Interpret
-one of the rows of column percentages (lowers, highest, or specially relevant row)
-percentages as odds (4%, 4/100) to be able to compare odds across columns (times more likely)
Test of significance
Chi-Squared 2 Testing the Null Hypothesis

(assym. sig. Value is the associated p value of the test)

Ho: Variables x1,x3 are independent (not associated) in the population from which the
sample is drawn.
Assuming conventional level for scientific significance of 95% chance that association is
true for the population, the chance of the null hypothesis needs to be less than 5% (the
probability produced by the 2 test needs to be p<0.05)
high scientific significance p<0.01
preliminary studies p<0.1)
Type I Error rejecting, true Ho
Type II Error not rejecting, false Ho)
If p produced by 2 test is less than level of significance (if the p is low, the null must go)
Since the Chi-squared (2=__, dF=__) test statistic produced a value of p < 0.05, there is
strong evidence on which to reject the Ho.
In other words there is very strong evidence of a relationship, association between variables
x1 & x3 in the population from which the sample was drawn.
(else if p high, insufficient evidence to reject Ho, variables are independent in population )
Logic: 2= (Omn-Emn) Emn

Emn = (Column m Total)(Row n Total) Total

Test of external validity, compares expected values Emn w/ actual values Omn.
Measured relative to dF = (#row-1)(#columns-1)
In Ho condition, actual same as expected, Omn = Emn, but if Omn Emn than the
results are not occurring by chance, reject Ho.
The greater the Omn-Emn, the more confident we can be that the distribution of
cell frequencies, in not a product of chance, nor sampling error.
2 requires a large enough sample to reduce sampling error.
Cramer's V

nominal-ordinal, nominal-nominal
weak
moderate
0.01 - 0.1
0.1 -0.3

strong
0.3 - higher

direction
n/a, asymmetric

suggests that there is ___ association b/w the variables.

Logic: not a PRE statistic (uses logic of Chi-square test)
do not use phrases using logic of prediction
V = ( 2 (N * min{#row-1, #columns-1}))

N = #sampled

Interpret Measure of association

Gamma

ordinal-ordinal, ordinal-dichotomous nominal (value column of Stat Table)

no assoc. weak moderate strong v. strong perfect
direction
0
0.2
0.4
0.6 0.8
1
symmetric (if -ve, x1 x3)
suggests a ___ association b/w the variables and x1 explains *100% of the variation in x3.
Logic: a Proportional Reduction of Error PRE statistic, judges the strength of association b/w
variables by calculating how much the knowledge of the value of one variable (x1)
reduces the error in guessing the value of the other variable (x3)
In the case of involves the guessing of ordinal arrangement of values
= (Ps Pd) / (Ps + Pd)

Ps = concordant pairs, Pd = discordant pairs

Elaboration Paradigm 3-way Cross tab

Elaborate a relationship between two variables TII (x3,x2) by introducing a third (x1)
Bivariate analysis
Multivariate analysis

examines relationship between independent & dependent variable TII (x3,x2)

use of third variable (x1) to examine same relationship w/i each sub-samples
-categories of x1 (#cases) define 2+ sub-spaces in the data, partial tables in TIII
-in each sub-space x1 is the 'control' variable, held constant

What happens to cell percentages? (Compare multivariate analysis subspaces TIII to bivariate analysis TII)
Five logical possibilities of elaboration paradigm Instance of:
Replication
Suppression
Specification

same or very similar c.percentages & differences b/w them in TIII sub-spaces and TII
consistently higher odds ratios in TIII sub-spaces than in TII
inconsistent odd ratios in TIII subspaces (1,2,3,4) compared to TII (2.5)

Spurious

consistently smaller percentages differences in the row in TIII than TII

-thus odd ratios significantly smaller (even approaching 0), defined by control variable ...
-rival independent variable (x1)
-false association b/w x2 and x3 (relationship 'found' at TII is a spurious relationship)
-only appears b/c x1 is a common antecedent to both x2 and x3

Explanation

consistently smaller percentages differences in the row in TIII than TII

-thus odd ratios significantly smaller (even approaching 0), defined by control variable ...
-intervening variable (x1)
-dependent on ind. var. x2, independent and determining of variation in dep. Var. x3
-'tap' in the causal flow, explanatory power of x2 flows to x3 via x1

Use elaboration to see if bivariate analysis maintains over all statistical significance.
Perform test of significance for each of the sub-spaces, partial tables (2)
Ex
When controlling for variable x1 the relationship between x3 and x2
-is no longer statistically significant over all, but a partial association remains for a case of x1
-thus variable x1 does not appear to have an impact on weather x2 will affect x3
Perform test of measure of association for each of the partial tables ( or V)
-which variable is more important at the bivariate level (TI vs. TII )
Ex
When controlling for variable x1 the relationship between x3 and x2
-does appear to have an impact on weather x2 will affect x3 an intervening variable
-impact of x1 is seen by the various explanatory powers of x2 (TII vs. TIII ), some some