A reference for Pearson's chi-squared testing I am wondering if there is a reference for the Pearson's chi-squared test suitable for technically-sophisticated audience that simply presents when the test (in its various forms) is appropriate and how it is carried out (i.e., construction of the test statistic, etc.)
The reason I ask is that I am using Pearson's chi-squared tests for independence (in a simpe 2x2 contingency table) and homogeneity in a paper that describes some experimental results in physics.  The tests are used to confirm the "minor" phenomena and are thus relegated to the footnotes.  However, I would still like to provide a reference in case the audience wants to look up the test and confirm my claims (either on my data or their own data).
Many of the stats books that I looked at either don't discuss Pearson's chi-square, or have a very limited discussion of it (I saw relegated to a homework problem in one of the books I looked at).  However, I think that "A Guide to Chi-Squared Testing" by Greenwood and Nikulin is very hard to read.  Is there a better text?  Perhaps a chapter or two in a good textbook?  Any suggestions?
 A: One possible reference might be to section 2.4 of Alan Agresti's "An Introduction to Categorical Data Analysis"[1]. It might be worth checking if that has enough of what you need.
[1]: Agresti, A. (2007),
An Introduction to Categorical Data Analysis,
John Wiley & Sons Hoboken, NJ
A: What about simply going to the roots:
Pearson, K. (1900). On the criterion that a given system of deviations from the probable in the case of a correlated system of variables is such that it can be reasonably supposed to have arisen from random sampling. Philosophical Magazine Series, 5, 50 (302): 157–175. 
A: Ludbrook clarifies the evolution of analysis of 2x2 tables including the problems and improvements; see  Int. J. Epidemiol. (2008) 37 (6): 1430-1435. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyn162  found at http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/37/6/1430.short
Citing is open to your intent, so be careful.  Choose an original publication to honor precedence - the first mention in print (1900), or how the testing is viewed today in a more professionally acceptable form. These are not the same and you should be clear in what you write which is being cited.
