Tests of independence in contingency tables with small samples: A comparison of statistical power

Educational and Psychological Measurement

Volumn 56, Issue 1, 1996, Pages 26-44

  Parshall, Cynthia G ^a   Kromrey, Jeffrey D ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA   (United States)

^b NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0030539569     PISSN: 00131644     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0013164496056001002     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Agresti, A. (1992). A survey of exact inference for contingency tables. Statistical Science, 7, 131-177.
2. Bradley, J. V. (1978). Robustness? British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 31, 144-152.
3. Camilli, G. (1990). The test of homogeneity for 2 × 2 contingency tables: A review of and some personal observations on the controversy. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 135-145.
4. Camilli, G., & Hopkins, K. D. (1978). Applicability of chi-square to 2 × 2 contingency tables with small expected cell frequencies. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 163-167.
5. Camilli, G., & Hopkins, K. D. (1979). Testing for association in 2 × 2 contingency tables with very small sample sizes. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 1011-1014.
6. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Academic Press.
7. D'Agostino, R. B., Chase, W., & Belanger, A. (1988). The appropriateness of some common procedures for testing the equality of two independent binomial populations. American Statistician, 42, 198-201.
8. Fienberg, S. E. (1977). The analysis of cross-classified categorical data. Cambridge: MIT Press.
9. Larntz, K. (1978). Small-sample comparisons of exact levels for chi-squared goodness-of-fit statistics. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 73, 253-263.
10. Little, R.J.A. (1989). Testing the equality of two independent binomial proportions. American Statistician, 43, 283-288.
11. Mantel, N., & Greenhouse, S. W. (1968). What is the continuity correction? American Statistician, 22, 27-30.
12. Martín Andres, A., Herranz Tejedor, I., & Luna del Castillo, J. D. (1992). Optimal correction for continuity in the chi-squared test in 2 × 2 tables conditioned method. Communication in Statistics, 21, 1077-1101.
13. Mehta, C. R., & Hilton, J. F. (1993). Exact power of conditional and unconditional tests: Going beyond the 2 × 2 contingency table. American Statistician, 47, 91-98.
14. Mehta, C. R., & Patel, N. R. (1983). A network algorithm for performing Fisher's Exact Test in r × c contingency tables. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 78, 427-434.
15. Milligan, G. W. (1980). Factors that affect Type I and Type II error rates in the analysis of multidimensional contingency tables. Psychological Bulletin, 87, 238-244
16. Roscoe, J. T., & Byars, J. A. (1971). An investigation of the restraints with respect to sample size commonly imposed on the use of the chi-square statistic. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 66, 755-759.
17. Suissa, S., & Schuster, J. J. (1985). Exact unconditional sample sizes for the 2 × 2 binomial test. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society (Ser. A), 148, 317-327.
18. Thompson, B. (1988). Misuse of chi-square contingency table test statistics. Educational and Psychological Research, 8, 39-49.
19. Upton, G. J. G. (1978). The analysis of cross-tabulated data. New York: Wiley.