Tell me more ×
Cross Validated is a question and answer site for statisticians, data analysts, data miners and data visualization experts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Following a recent down vote I have been trying to check my understanding of the Pearson Chi Squared test. I usually use the chi squared statistic (or reduced chi squared statistic) for fitting or checking the resulting fit. In this case the variance is not usually the expected number of counts in a table or histogram but some experimentally determined variance. Either way, I was always under the impression that the test still used the asymptotic normality of the multinomial PDF (i.e. my test statistic is

$$Q = (n-Nm)^\top V^{-1}(n-Nm)$$

and $(n-Nm)$ is asymptotically multinormal where $V$ is is covariance matrix). Therefore $Q$ has a chi-squared distribution given large $n$ so using the expected number of counts as the denominator in the statistic becomes valid for large $n$. Its possible that this is only true for histograms, I haven't analysed a small table of data in years.

Is there a more subtle argument that I am missing? I would be interested in a reference, or even better a short explanation. (Although its possible I just got down voted for omitting the word asymptotic, which I concede is rather important.)

share|improve this question
Following from that presumably its also true that one could use the exact same test with any normally distributed data. If I were to use a voltmeter which I knew to have some normally distributed error that I had determined then I could use, $$\chi^{2} = \sum_{i} \frac{(V_{obs} - V_{exp})^{2}}{\sigma^{2}}$$. Is this true? The reduced chi square statistic presumeably relies on this fact. – Bowler Dec 14 '11 at 15:59

Know someone who can answer? Share a link to this question via email, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook.

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.