1
$\begingroup$

I am an archaeologist (PhD candidate) that has recently learned how to perform chi squared tests. However, I am told that for the table below, I would need a Fisher's exact test since some of the bins have <5 in them.

I know that this test is usually for 2x2 tables but that it's possible to use it for larger tables too and I have found a number of sites that allow you to enter the data and give you a P value for 2x4 tables such as mine.

However, I know that in citing the results of a chi-squared test, I must quote the test statistic and the df and presume that I would have to do so for this test also.

I know how to work out the df for chi-squared tests (Row-1)*(Columns-1) but wondered if it was the same foe the Fisher's exact test.

As for the test statistic, I would have no idea where to start. Any help would be much appreciated.

Apologies if this is an old question. I think another person may have asked about this already, although the terminology used in both the question and the answer made it hard to be certain!

Grade 1:    0       2    |   2  
Grade 2:    5      58    |  63  
Grade 3:    4       3    |   7  
Grade 4:    4       3    |   7  
           --------------+----- 
TOTAL:     13      66    |  79  
$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Fisher’s test is hard to generalize to higher dimension tables. You may use the $\chi^2$ test with the adjustement suggested by @whuber in his answer to this question. Note that he gives a reference to the litterature to help you justify your choice. $\endgroup$ – Elvis Dec 4 '13 at 9:50
  • $\begingroup$ @Elvis Thank you so much for your reply and for fixing my attempt at displaying my table! As a first time user of this site I really appreciate the help of people who must think my questions very basic. Not all my expected frequencies exceed 1 but it seems the Fisher-Irwin test might be something I can use instead. Many thanks again. $\endgroup$ – Denise Dec 4 '13 at 10:35
  • $\begingroup$ "since some of the bins have <5 in them" -- this is too strong a restriction, as numerous papers have concluded, however, some of the expected values are quite small, so perhaps the chi-square distribution won't be a sufficiently good approximation. $ $ "I would need a Fisher's exact test" -- that's far from the only alternative; for example, one can simulate from the (discrete) distribution of the chi-square test statistic and so don't have to rely on the accuracy of the chi-square distribution. $\endgroup$ – Glen_b Dec 4 '13 at 10:38
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Elvis I think you mean Frank Harrell's answer there (whuber edited it) $\endgroup$ – Glen_b Dec 4 '13 at 10:44
  • $\begingroup$ I had asked a similar question. You still should be able to use a $\chi^2$ test with a (N-1) correction, subject to certain conditions. Have a look at this link $\endgroup$ – Zhubarb Dec 4 '13 at 11:51
3
$\begingroup$

The massive 58 amid much lower frequencies signals that any test is just quantifying a major failure of independence. I did this in Stata. The command ret li (short for return list) obliges Stata to show results as exactly as it knows them, but both tests yield P-values that are 0.000 to 3 d.p. It is right to be a little cautious about low expected values (for row 1 here in particular) but the test results are overwhelming.

. tabi 0  2 \ 5 58 \ 4 3 \ 4 3 

            |          col
        row |         1          2 |     Total
 -----------+----------------------+----------
          1 |         0          2 |         2 
          2 |         5         58 |        63 
          3 |         4          3 |         7 
          4 |         4          3 |         7 
 -----------+----------------------+----------
      Total |        13         66 |        79 

      Pearson chi2(3) =  20.5779   Pr = 0.000

. ret li 

scalars:
              r(p) =  .0001288081813192
           r(chi2) =  20.57794057794058
              r(c) =  2
              r(r) =  4
              r(N) =  79

. tabi 0  2 \ 5 58 \ 4 3 \ 4 3 , exact

Enumerating sample-space combinations:
stage 4:  enumerations = 1
stage 3:  enumerations = 3
stage 2:  enumerations = 17
stage 1:  enumerations = 0

             |          col
         row |         1          2 |     Total
  -----------+----------------------+----------
           1 |         0          2 |         2 
           2 |         5         58 |        63 
           3 |         4          3 |         7 
           4 |         4          3 |         7 
  -----------+----------------------+----------
       Total |        13         66 |        79 

       Fisher's exact =                 0.000

. ret li 

scalars:
        r(p_exact) =  .0003124258226793
              r(c) =  2
              r(r) =  4
              r(N) =  79
| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Many thanks for this. Very much appreciated. If I could ask one last question it would be whether it is the norm to quote a df and test statistic figure and if, considering your answer above, they might respectively be 3 and 20.57794057794058 $\endgroup$ – Denise Dec 4 '13 at 14:14
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ As you ask, quoting a chi-square statistic to 14 d.p. would at best be considered a rather strange joke and at worst as strong evidence of not thinking! I wouldn't give more digits than 20.578. That's still more than anyone needs, but more conventional. The number of degrees of freedom for this test is 3, as you said earlier, as (#rows - 1)(#cols - 1). Note that chi-square tests appear in all kinds of statistical problems; this is just one of the two kinds met first in many elementary courses. $\endgroup$ – Nick Cox Dec 4 '13 at 14:37
  • $\begingroup$ Now that I have learnt how to calculate the Fisher's Exact Test myself in SPSS, I notice that the 20.578 figure accompanies the output for the Pearson Chi-Square, whereas 16.742 accompanies the Fisher's Exact. Shouldn't it be the case that, in quoting the test statistic, the former is quoted for the Pearson (albeit recognising that 4 cells have an expected count of less than 5) and the latter for the Fisher? $\endgroup$ – Denise Feb 10 '14 at 10:04
  • $\begingroup$ Sorry, but (1) I don't use SPSS (2) I don't understand your new question. Best to ask a new question explaining directly what puzzles you. $\endgroup$ – Nick Cox Feb 10 '14 at 10:11

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.