Literature DB >> 24788323

Analysis of residuals in contingency tables: another nail in the coffin of conditional approaches to significance testing.

Miguel A García-Pérez1, Vicente Núñez-Antón, Rocío Alcalá-Quintana.   

Abstract

Omnibus tests of significance in contingency tables use statistics of the chi-square type. When the null is rejected, residual analyses are conducted to identify cells in which observed frequencies differ significantly from expected frequencies. Residual analyses are thus conditioned on a significant omnibus test. Conditional approaches have been shown to substantially alter type I error rates in cases involving t tests conditional on the results of a test of equality of variances, or tests of regression coefficients conditional on the results of tests of heteroscedasticity. We show that residual analyses conditional on a significant omnibus test are also affected by this problem, yielding type I error rates that can be up to 6 times larger than nominal rates, depending on the size of the table and the form of the marginal distributions. We explored several unconditional approaches in search for a method that maintains the nominal type I error rate and found out that a bootstrap correction for multiple testing achieved this goal. The validity of this approach is documented for two-way contingency tables in the contexts of tests of independence, tests of homogeneity, and fitting psychometric functions. Computer code in MATLAB and R to conduct these analyses is provided as Supplementary Material.

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 24788323     DOI: 10.3758/s13428-014-0472-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Behav Res Methods        ISSN: 1554-351X


  4 in total

1.  Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness Against Null Hypothesis Significance Testing.

Authors:  Miguel A García-Pérez
Journal:  Educ Psychol Meas       Date:  2016-10-05       Impact factor: 2.821

2.  Order effects in two-alternative forced-choice tasks invalidate adaptive threshold estimates.

Authors:  Miguel A García-Pérez; Rocío Alcalá-Quintana
Journal:  Behav Res Methods       Date:  2020-10

3.  Psychophysical Tests Do Not Identify Ocular Dominance Consistently.

Authors:  Miguel A García-Pérez; Eli Peli
Journal:  Iperception       Date:  2019-04-29

4.  The Interpretation of Scholars' Interpretations of Confidence Intervals: Criticism, Replication, and Extension of Hoekstra et al. (2014).

Authors:  Miguel A García-Pérez; Rocío Alcalá-Quintana
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2016-07-08
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.