3
$\begingroup$

I have a set of data from an experiment where people are asked to remember items of different types; let's call them A, B and C, such that they can either recall them or not. Here is an example contingency table:

                   A     B     C
Recalled          20    15    10
Did not recall     5     8    10

I am supposed to find out whether the probability of recalling items of type A is higher than the probability of recalling B or C (I'm not interested in testing B against C).

If I were to test two different samples, let's say A against B, I would use a chi-squared test. However, since I am testing three different samples and not two, I believe I would be introducing an error if I just ran two separate chi-squared tests. If I was testing means of samples I could use the Kruskal-Wallis method and then pairwise Mann-Whitney U tests, but I do not know of any method that I could use for testing probabilities of samples.

$\endgroup$
7
$\begingroup$

It is certainly fine to do pairwise chi-square tests, but that isn't the only possibility. Another is to fit a generalized linear model and follow it up with pairwise comparisons of its predictions. In R, it goes something like this:

> example = data.frame(trt = factor(c("A","B","C")),
+   rec = c(20,15,10), not = c(5,8,10))

> example.glm = glm(cbind(rec, not) ~ trt, data = example, 
+   family = binomial())

This fits a logistic regression model for predicting $\log\{p_i/(1-p_i)\}, i=1,2,3$. A chi-squared test (not the same as the Pearson chi-square, but similar) for $H_0:p_1=p_2=p_3$ is obtained via

> anova(example.glm)
Analysis of Deviance Table
Model: binomial, link: logit
Response: cbind(rec, not)

Terms added sequentially (first to last)
     Df Deviance Resid. Df Resid. Dev
NULL                     2     4.5545
trt   2   4.5545         0     0.0000

so that the test statistic is $\chi^2 = 4.55$ with 2 d.f.

The post-hoc estimates and comparisons are done in a manner similar to that for ordinary ANOVA models:

> library(lsmeans)
Loading required package: estimability

> lsmeans(example.glm, pairwise ~ trt)
$lsmeans
 trt    lsmean        SE df  asymp.LCL asymp.UCL
 A   1.3862944 0.4999999 NA  0.4063126 2.3662762
 B   0.6286087 0.4377975 NA -0.2294587 1.4866760
 C   0.0000000 0.4472136 NA -0.8765225 0.8765225

Results are given on the logit (not the response) scale. 
Confidence level used: 0.95 

$contrasts
 contrast  estimate        SE df z.ratio p.value
 A - B    0.7576857 0.6645800 NA   1.140  0.4893
 A - C    1.3862944 0.6708203 NA   2.067  0.0969
 B - C    0.6286087 0.6258328 NA   1.004  0.5740

Results are given on the log (not the response) scale. 
P value adjustment: tukey method for comparing a family of 3 estimates 
Tests are performed on the log scale

The least-squares means (first table) are predictions from the model for $\log\{p_i/(1-p_i)\}$ and the contrasts are pairwise comparisons of these quantities. Alternatively, you could back-transform these results and obtain estimates of the $p_i$ themselves, and of the odds ratios $\frac{p_i}{1-p_i}/\frac{p_j}{1-p_j}$:

> lsmeans(example.glm, pairwise ~ trt, type = "response")
$lsmeans
 trt      prob         SE df asymp.LCL asymp.UCL
 A   0.8000000 0.07999999 NA 0.6002034 0.9142193
 B   0.6521739 0.09931135 NA 0.4428857 0.8155788
 C   0.5000000 0.11180340 NA 0.2938989 0.7061011

Confidence level used: 0.95 
Intervals are back-transformed from the logit scale 

$contrasts
 contrast odds.ratio       SE df z.ratio p.value
 A - B      2.133333 1.417771 NA   1.140  0.4893
 A - C      4.000000 2.683281 NA   2.067  0.0969
 B - C      1.875000 1.173436 NA   1.004  0.5740

P value adjustment: tukey method for comparing a family of 3 estimates 
Tests are performed on the log scale

The advantage of this approach is that you obtain comparisons of meaningful quantities, rather than just chi-squares and $P$ values. The Tukey adjustment on the comparisons is only approximate; but then, so are the results of pairwise chi-squared tests, and the Bonferroni correction is more conservative.

$\endgroup$
-1
$\begingroup$

It turns out one should do a chi-squared test for the whole table and then additional chi-squared tests for pairwise differences, only that pairwise comparisons use Bonferroni correction. See http://www.biostathandbook.com/chiind.html for an example.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.