Small sample comparisons for the blended weight chi-square goodness-of-fit test statistics

Communications in Statistics - Theory and Methods

Volumn 25, Issue 1, 1996, Pages 211-226

  Shin, Dong Wan ^a   Basu, Ayanendranath ^b   Sarkar, Sahadeb ^c  

^a Ewha Womans University   (South Korea)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN   (United States)

^c OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Blended weight chi square; Chi squared statistic; Goodness of fit; Large sparse multinomial; Likelihood ratio test; Power

Indexed keywords

EID: 0000541669     PISSN: 03610926     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/03610929608831689     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Basu, A. and Sarkar, S. (1994a). On disparity based goodness-of-fit tests for multinomial models. Statistics and Probability Letters 19, 307-312.
2. Basu, A. and Sarkar, S. (1994b). The trade-off between robustness and efficiency and the effect of model smoothing in minimum disparity inference. J. Statist. Comput. Simul. 50, 173-185.
3. Basu, A. and Sarkar, S. (1994c). Minimum disparity estimation in the errors-in-variables model. Statistics and Probability Letters 20, 69-73.
4. Cressie, N. and Read, T. R. C. (1984). Multinomial goodness-of-fit tests. J. Roy. Statist. Soc. B 46, 440-464.
5. Holst, L. (1972). Asymptotic normality and efficiency for certain goodness-of-fit tests. Biometrika 59, 137-145.
6. Koehler, K. J. and Larntz, K. (1980). An empirical investigation of goodness-of-fit statistics for sparse multinomials. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 75, 336-344.
7. Larntz, K. (1978). Small sample comparisons of exact levels of chi-squared goodness-of-fit statistics. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 73, 253-263.
8. Lindsay, B. G. (1994). Efficiency versus robustness: The case for minimum Hellinger distance and related methods. Ann. Statist. 22, 1081-1114.
9. 2 test. Proc. 1st Berkeley Symp. Math. Statist. Prob., 239-273.
10. Odoroff, C. L. (1970). A comparison of minimum logit chi-square estimation and maximum likelihood estimation in 2×2×2 and 3×2×2 contingency tables: tests for interaction. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc., 65, 1617-1631.
11. Pearson, K. (1900). On the criterion that a given system of deviations from the probable in the case of a correlated system of variables is such that it can be supposed to have arisen from random sampling. Philosophy Magazine Series 50, 157-172.
12. Read, T. R. C. (1984a). Small sample comparisons for the power divergence goodness-of-fit statistics. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 79, 929-935.
13. Read, T. R. C. (1984b). Closer asymptotic approximations for the distributions of the power divergence goodness-of-fit statistics. Ann. Inst. Statist. Math. A, 36, 59-69.
14. Read, T. R. C. and Cressie, N. (1988). Goodness-of-fit statistics for discrete multivariate data. Springer-Verlag, New York.
15. Rudas, T. (1986). A Monte Carlo comparison of the small sample behavior of the Pearson, the likelihood ratio and the Cressie-Read statistics. J. Statist. Comput. Simul. 24, 107-120.
16. Sarkar, S. and Basu, A. (1995). On disparity based robust tests for two discrete populations. Sankhya, Series B (to appear).
17. 2 goodness of fit tests and the accuracy of approximations for the null distribution. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 65, 864-886.
18. Yarnold, J. K. (1972). Asymptotic approximations for the probability that a sum of lattice random vectors lies in a convex set. Ann. Math. Statist. 43, 1566-1580.