Skip to main content

Log-linear Modeling, Latent Class Analysis, or Correspondence Analysis

Which Method Should Be Used for the Analysis of Categorical Data?

  • Chapter
Book cover Latent Trait and Latent Class Models

Abstract

Data collected by social and behavioral scientists very often consist of large multidimensional tables of subjects cross-classified according to the values or states of several categorical variables. For example, Table 1 shows a set of data on suicide victims in which the method of committing suicide is cross-classified by sex and age group (Van der Heijden & de Leeuw, 1985) and Table 2 shows counts of subjects resulting from a survey of the political attitudes of a sample from the British electorate (Butler & Stokes, 1974). The analysis of such data should clearly depend on the substantive questions posed by the researcher involved, although in many cases these questions will be rather vague. The research worker may be interested in such notions as “pattern” and “structure” but it will often be left to the statistician to clarify what is meant by such concepts and whether they are present in the investigator’s data. Finally, the statistician has the often difficult task of explaining the results.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Aitkin, M. (1985). Paper presented at Workshop on Comparison of Correspondence Analysis and Statistical Modeling. University of Lancaster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benzécri, J. P. (1969). Statistical analysis as a tool to make patterns emerge from data. In S. Watanabe (Ed.) Methodologies of pattern recognition pp. 35–74. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birch, M. W. (1963). Maximum likelihood in three-way contingency tables. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 25, 220–233.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bishop, Y. M. M., Fienberg, S. E., and Holland, P. W. (1975). Discrete multivariate analysis: Theory and practice. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler, D., and Stokes, D. (1974). Political change in Britain ( 2nd ed. ), London: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dempster, A. P., Laird, N. M., and Rubin, D. B. (1977). Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM algorithm. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 39, 1–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Everitt, B. S. (1977). The analysis of contingency tables. London: Chapman and Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Everitt, B. S. (1984). An introduction to latent variable models. London: Chapman and Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Everitt, B. S., and Hand, D. J. (1981). Finite mixture distribution. London: Chapman and Hall.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, R. A. (1940). The precision of discriminant functions. Annals of Eugenics, 10, 422–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, L. A. (1974). Exploratory latent structure analysis using both identifiable and unidentifiable models. Biometrika, 61, 215–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, B. F. (1951). A general solution of the latent class model of latent structure analysis and latent profile analysis. Psychometrika, 16, 151–166.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Haberman, S. J. (1979). Analysis of qualitative data: Vol. 2. New developments. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, M. O. (1974). Correspondence analysis: A neglected multivariate method. Applied Statistics, 23, 340–354.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lazarsfeld, P. L., and Henry, N. W. (1968). Latent structure analysis. Boston, Massachusetts: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Payne, C. (1977). The log-linear model for contingency tables. In C. A. O’Muircheartaigh and C. Payne (Eds.) The analysis of survey data (Vol. 2). London: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tukey, J. W. (1977). Exploratory data analysis. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van der Heijden, P. G. M., and de Leeuw, J. (1985). Correspondence analysis and Complementary to Loglinear Analysis, Psychometrika, 50, 429–447.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, E. J. (1952). Use of scores for the analysis of association in contingency tables. Biometrika, 39, 274–298.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1988 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Everitt, B.S., Dunn, G. (1988). Log-linear Modeling, Latent Class Analysis, or Correspondence Analysis. In: Langeheine, R., Rost, J. (eds) Latent Trait and Latent Class Models. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-5644-9_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-5644-9_6

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4757-5646-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4757-5644-9

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics