Correspondence Analysis used Complementary to Loglinear Analysis | Psychometrika | Cambridge Core (original) (raw)

Abstract

Loglinear analysis and correspondence analysis provide us with two different methods for the decomposition of contingency tables. In this paper we will show that there are cases in which these two techniques can be used complementary to each other. More specifically, we will show that often correspondence analysis can be viewed as providing a decomposition of the difference between two matrices, each following a specific loglinear model. Therefore, in these cases the correspondence analysis solution can be interpreted in terms of the difference between these loglinear models. A generalization of correspondence analysis, recently proposed by Escofier, will also be discussed. With this decomposition, which includes classical correspondence analysis as a special case, it is possible to use correspondence analysis complementary to loglinear analysis in more instances than those described for classical correspondence analysis. In this context correspondence analysis is used for the decomposition of the residuals of specific restricted loglinear models.

References

Agresti, A. (1983). A survey of strategies for modeling cross-classifications having ordinal variables. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 78, 184–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Andersen, E. B. (1980). Discrete statistical models with social science applications, Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar

Benzécri, J. P. (1973). Analyse des données [The analysis of Data], Paris: Dunod.Google Scholar

Benzécri, J. P. (1980). Pratique de l'analyse des données [The Practice of Data Analysis], Paris: Dunod.Google Scholar

Bishop, Y. M., Y., Fienberg, S. E., Holland, P. W. (1975). Discrete multivariate analysis: Theory and practice, Cambridge: MIT press.Google Scholar

Bonett, D. G., Bentler, P. M. (1983). Goodness-of-fit procedures for the evaluation and selection of loglinear models. Psychological Bulletin, 93(1), 149–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Daudin, J. J., Trécourt, P. (1980). Analyse factorielle des correspondances et modèle log-lineaire: Comparaison des deux methodes sur un exemple [Correspondence analysis and the loglinear model: Comparison of two methods on an example]. Revue de Statistique Appliquée, 28(1), 5–24.Google Scholar

de Leeuw, J. (1971). Canonical analysis of contingency tables (RB-002-71), Leiden: R.U.L./F.S.W., Department of Datatheory.Google Scholar

de Leeuw, J. (1983). Models and methods for the analysis of correlation coefficients. Journal of Econometrics, 22, 113–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

de Leeuw, J. (1984). Canonical analysis of categorical data, Leiden: DSWO-press.Google Scholar

Diekstra, R. F. W. (1981). Over suicide [about suicide], Alphen a/d Rijn: Samson.Google Scholar

Dixon, W. J. (1981). BMDP statistical software 1981, Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Douglas, J. D. (1973). The social meanings of suicide, Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Escofier, B. (1983). Analyse de la difference entre deux mesures sur le produit de deux mêmes ensembles [Analysis of the difference between two measures on the product of two identical sets]. Cahiers de l'Analyse des Données, 3, 325–329.Google Scholar

Fienberg, S. E. (1980). The analysis of cross-classified categorical data 2nd ed.,, Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Fienberg, S. E., Meyer, M. M. (1983). Loglinear models and categorical data analysis with psychometric and econometric applications. Journal of Econometrics, 22, 191–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gifi, A. (1981). Non-linear multivariate analysis (2nd. ed. in press, LeidenLeiden: R.U.L./F.S.W., Department of Datatheory DSWO press)Google Scholar

Goodman, L. A. (1979). Simple models for the analysis of association in cross-classifications having ordered categories. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 74, 537–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Goodman, L. A. (1981). Association models and the bivariate normal for contingency tables with ordered categories. Biometrika, 68, 347–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Goodman, L. A. (1981). Association models and canonical correlation in the analysis of cross-classifications having ordered categories. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 76, 320–334.Google Scholar

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

Heiser, W. J., Meulman, J. (1983). Analyzing rectangular tables by joint and constrained multi-dimensional scaling. Journal of Econometrics, 22, 139–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Heuer, J. (1979). Selbstmord bei Kinder und Jugendlichen [Suicide of children and youth], Stuttgard: Ernst Klett Verlag.Google Scholar

Israëls, A. Z., Sikkel, D. (1982). Correspondence analysis and comparisons with other techniques, Voorburg: Centraal Bureau voor Statistiek.Google Scholar

Kendall, M. G., Stuart, A. (1973). The advanced theory of statistics, Vol. 2 3rd. ed.,, London: Griffin.Google Scholar

Kroonenberg, P. M. (1983). Three-mode principal component analysis, Leiden: DSWO-press.Google Scholar

Leclerc, A. (1975). L'analyse des correspondances sur juxtaposition de tableaux de contingence [Correspondence analysis of concatenated contingency tables]. Revue de Statistique Appliquée, 23(3), 5–16.Google Scholar

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

Reynolds, H. T. (1977). The analysis of cross-classifications, Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.Google Scholar