Canonical Analysis of Contingency Tables with Linear Constraints | Psychometrika | Cambridge Core (original) (raw)

Abstract

A generalized least squares approach is presented for incorporating linear constraints on the standardized row and column scores obtained from a canonical analysis of a contingency table. The method is easy to implement and may simplify considerably the interpretation of a data matrix. The approach is compared to a restricted maximum likelihood procedure.

References

Benzécri, J. P. et al. (1980). Practique de l'analyse des donnees [Practice of data analysis], Paris: Dunod.Google Scholar

Escoufier, Y. (1988). Beyond correspondence analysis. In Bock, H. H. (Eds.), Classification and related methods of data analysis (pp. 505–514). Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar

Escoufier, Y., & Junca, S. (1986). Least-squares approximation of frequencies and their logarithms. International Statistical Review, 54, 279–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gifi, A. (1981). Non-linear multivariate analysis, Leiden: University of Leiden.Google Scholar

Gilula, Z. (1982). A note on the analysis of association in cross-classifications having ordered categories. Communications in Statistics, Part A: Theory and Methods, 11, 1233–1240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gilula, Z., & Haberman, S. J. (1986). Canonical analysis of contingency tables by maximum likelihood. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 81, 780–788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gilula, Z., & Haberman, S. J. (1988). The analysis of multivariate contingency tables by restricted canonical and restricted association models. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 83, 760–771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Goodman, L. (1985). The analysis of cross-correlated data having ordered and/or unordered categories: Association models, correlatin models, and asymmetry models for contingency tables with or without missing entries. The Annals of Statistics, 13, 10–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Greenacre, M. J. (1984). Theory and applications of correspondence analysis, New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Haberman, S. J. (1979). Analsysis of qualitative data (Vol. 2), New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Lebart, L., Morineau, A., & Warwick, K. M. (1984). Multivariate descriptive statistical analysis: Correspondence analysis and related techniques for large matrices, New York: Wiley.Google Scholar

Nishisato, S. (1980). Analysis of categorical data: Dual scaling and its applications, Toronto: University of Toronto Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nishisato, S., & Lawrence, (1989). Dual scaling of multiway data matrices: Several variants. In Coppi, R. & Bolasco, S. (Eds.), Multiway data analysis (pp. 317–326). Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar

Rao, C. R. (1964). The use and interpretation of principal components analysis in applied research. Sankhya, Series A, 26, 329–358.Google Scholar

Takane, Y. (1987). Analysis of contingency tables by ideal point discriminant analysis. Psychometrika, 52, 493–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Takane, Y., & Shibayama, . (in press). Principal component analysis with external information on both subjects and variables. Psychometrika.Google Scholar

ter Braak, C. J. F. (1988). Partial canonical correspondence analysis. In Bock, H. H. (Eds.), Classification and related methods of data analysis (pp. 551–558). Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar

van der Heijden, P. G. M., & de Leeuw, J. (1985). Correspondence analysis used complementary to loglinear analysis. Psychometrika, 50, 429–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

van der Heijden, P. G. M., de Falguerolles, A., & de Leeuw, J. (1989). A combined approach of contingency tables analysis using correspondence analysis and loglinear analysis. Applied Statistics, 38, 249–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Yanai, H. (1988). Partial correspondence analysis and its properties. In Hayashi, C., Jambu, M., Diday, E., & Ohsumi, N. (Eds.), Recent developments in clustering and data analysis (pp. 259–266). Boston: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar