17
$\begingroup$

To find association between peer's support (independent variable) and work satisfaction (dependent variable) I wish to apply chi-square test. Peer's support is categories in four groups according to the extent of support: 1=very less extent, 2=to some extent, 3=to great extent and 4=to very great extent. Work satisfaction is categories into two: 0=not satisfied and 1=satisfied.

The SPSS output says than 37.5 percent cell frequencies are less than 5. My sample size is 101 and I don't want to reduce categories in independent variable into lesser number. In this situation is there any other test that can be applied to test this association?

$\endgroup$
10
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I'm not entirely sure how it's handled in higher dimensional tables like yours, but in the 2x2 case, the small sample analog to the chi-square is the Fisher Exact Test. I'd heard it's possible to use the FET in arbitrary r x c contingency tables, but that it was computationally intensive. Another option would be to do a permutation test. $\endgroup$ Sep 4, 2012 at 9:23
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Given that both categories are ordinal, you could use a test that exploits that. See Agresti, Analysis of Ordinal Categorical Data for various possibilities. $\endgroup$
    – Peter Flom
    Sep 4, 2012 at 10:44
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @Michael Because it is not an answer: it is merely a hint followed by a (vague) pointer to an answer elsewhere. Please see the SE FAQ about answers. $\endgroup$
    – whuber
    Sep 4, 2012 at 12:56
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ You're welcome to discuss this on meta, @Michael, but not here. If you do open a discussion, I will maintain that "a form of" and "other alternatives" are too vague to be considered answers, as MånsT was gently trying to suggest. Sure, there is a gray area between answer status and comment status. As a moderator and reviewer I constantly am called to determine when would-be answers are really functioning as comments: this test of vagueness is one I attempt to consistently apply. $\endgroup$
    – whuber
    Sep 4, 2012 at 14:31
  • 10
    $\begingroup$ @Braj-Stat, one thing to note is that the "requirement" (such as it is) for the chi-squared test is that expected values are >5 in all cells, not raw counts, although you may still violate that rule of thumb, &/or want to run a different test anyway. $\endgroup$ Sep 4, 2012 at 15:32

2 Answers 2

11
$\begingroup$

Conover (1999:202) suggested that the expected values can be "as small as 0.5, as long as most are greater than 1.0, without endangering the validity of the test."

He also provides a "rule of thumb" from Cochran (1952) which suggested that if expected values are less than 1 or if more than 20% are less than 5, the test may perform poorly. However, Conover (1999) provides some evidence that Cochran's "rule of thumb" is overly conservative.

References

Cochran, W. G. 1952. The $\chi^2$ test of goodness of fit. Annals of Mathematical Statistics 23:315-345.

Conover, W. J. 1999. Practical nonparametric statistics. Third Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, New York, USA.

$\endgroup$
7
$\begingroup$

The $\chi^2$-test was originally devised by Pearson as an approximation to the log-likelihood ratio, due to the fact that log-likelihoods were too computationally intensive for the time.

Pearson's G is defined as $G = 2\sum_{ij}O_{ij}\ln(O_{ij}/E_{ij})$. It follows the same distribution as the corresponding $\chi^2$-test.

(Forgot to mention originally: G is much less sensitive to expected cell counts < 5).

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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