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

Which Method Should Be Used for the Analysis of Categorical Data?
  • B. S. Everitt
  • G. Dunn

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.

Keywords

Correspondence Analysis Latent Class Latent Class Analysis Latent Class Model Hair Color 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aitkin, M. (1985). Paper presented at Workshop on Comparison of Correspondence Analysis and Statistical Modeling. University of Lancaster.Google Scholar
  2. 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
  3. Birch, M. W. (1963). Maximum likelihood in three-way contingency tables. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 25, 220–233.Google Scholar
  4. Bishop, Y. M. M., Fienberg, S. E., and Holland, P. W. (1975). Discrete multivariate analysis: Theory and practice. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. Butler, D., and Stokes, D. (1974). Political change in Britain ( 2nd ed. ), London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  6. 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
  7. Everitt, B. S. (1977). The analysis of contingency tables. London: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
  8. Everitt, B. S. (1984). An introduction to latent variable models. London: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
  9. Everitt, B. S., and Hand, D. J. (1981). Finite mixture distribution. London: Chapman and Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fisher, R. A. (1940). The precision of discriminant functions. Annals of Eugenics, 10, 422–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Goodman, L. A. (1974). Exploratory latent structure analysis using both identifiable and unidentifiable models. Biometrika, 61, 215–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Green, B. F. (1951). A general solution of the latent class model of latent structure analysis and latent profile analysis. Psychometrika, 16, 151–166.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Greenacre, M. J. (1984). Theory and applications of correspondence analysis. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  14. Haberman, S. J. (1979). Analysis of qualitative data: Vol. 2. New developments. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  15. Hill, M. O. (1974). Correspondence analysis: A neglected multivariate method. Applied Statistics, 23, 340–354.Google Scholar
  16. Lazarsfeld, P. L., and Henry, N. W. (1968). Latent structure analysis. Boston, Massachusetts: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. Tukey, J. W. (1977). Exploratory data analysis. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  20. Van der Heijden, P. G. M., and de Leeuw, J. (1985). Correspondence analysis and Complementary to Loglinear Analysis, Psychometrika, 50, 429–447.Google Scholar
  21. Williams, E. J. (1952). Use of scores for the analysis of association in contingency tables. Biometrika, 39, 274–298.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • B. S. Everitt
    • 1
  • G. Dunn
    • 1
  1. 1.Biometrics Unit, Institute of PsychiatryUniversity of LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations