Literature DB >> 482479

Interactions in contingency tables: a brief discussion of alternative definitions.

B S Everitt, A M Smith.   

Abstract

The purpose of this note is to indicate how the disagreement between Tennant & Bebbington and Brown & Harris has arisen. The difference between the 2 pairs of authors is due, at least in part, to their use of different models for the analysis of the data in question. There can be no final answer as to which model is correct - the data are simply open to more than one interpretation. Nevertheless, it is interesting that the use of a multiplicative model, seemingly ignored by Brown & Harris, leads to a simple description of the data in which the 'vulnerability factor' and the 'provoking agent' may be considered to act independently on the response. Consequently, in stating that their data contain an interaction so obvious that it can be detected by 'visual inspection', Brown & Harris may have been somewhat rash.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1979        PMID: 482479     DOI: 10.1017/s0033291700032141

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychol Med        ISSN: 0033-2917            Impact factor:   7.723


  4 in total

1.  Personality, stress, smoking, and genetic predisposition as synergistic risk factors for cancer and coronary heart disease.

Authors:  H J Eysenck; R Grossarth-Maticek; B Everitt
Journal:  Integr Physiol Behav Sci       Date:  1991 Oct-Dec

2.  The matter of scale.

Authors:  D A Grayson
Journal:  Behav Genet       Date:  1990-01       Impact factor: 2.805

3.  Adversity and the onset of psychiatric disorder in women.

Authors:  P G Surtees; D Rennie
Journal:  Soc Psychiatry       Date:  1983

4.  Recent advances in the epidemiological study of minor psychiatric disorders.

Authors:  P Bebbington; J Hurry; C Tennant
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  1980-05       Impact factor: 18.000

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.