Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-tnzcf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T21:03:23.231Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Analysis of Three-Way Contingency Tables by Three-Mode Association Models

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Carolyn J. Anderson
Carolyn J. Anderson*
Affiliation:
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
*
Requests for reprints should be sent to Carolyn Anderson, Department of Educational Psychology, University of Illinois, 210 Education Building, 1310 S. Sixth Street, Champaign, IL 61820. Electronic address: cja@uiuc.edu
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The RC(M) association model (Goodman, 1979, 1985, 1986, 1991) is useful for analyzing the relationship between the variables of a 2-way cross-classification. The models presented here are generalizations of the RC(M) association model for 3-way tables. The family of models proposed here, “3-mode association” models, use Tucker's 3-mode components model (Tucker, 1964, 1966; Kroonenberg, 1983) to represent either the three factor interaction or the combined effects of two and three factor interactions. An example from a study in developmental psychology (Kramer & Gottman, 1992) is provided to illustrate the usefulness of the proposed models.

Keywords

loglinear modelsassociation modelsthree-factor interactionsTucker's 3-mode components model

Information

Type
Original Paper
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 61 , Issue 3 , September 1996, pp. 465 - 483
Copyright
Copyright © 1996 The Psychometric Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

I thank Stanley Wasserman, Laurie Kramer, Ulf Böckenholt, Larwence Hubert, Jeffrey Tanaka, and five anonymous reviewers for valuable comments.

References

Becker, M. P. (1989). Models for the analysis of association in multivariate contingency tables. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 84, 1014–1019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becker, M. P. (1990). Maximum likelihood estimation of the RC(M) association model. Applied Statistics, 39, 152–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becker, M. P., Clogg, C. C. (1989). Analysis of sets of two-way contingency tables using association models. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 84, 142–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bishop, Y. M. M., Fienberg, S. E., Holland, P. W. (1975). Discrete multivariate analysis, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Carroll, J. D., Chang, J. (1970). Analysis of individual differences in multidimensional scaling via an N-way generalization of Eckart-Young decomposition. Psychometrika, 35, 283–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Choulakian, V. (1988). Exploratory analysis of contingency tables by loglinear formulations and generalizations of correspondence analysis. Psychometrika, 53, 235–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Choulakian, V. (1988). Errata. Psychometrika, 53, 593–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clogg, C. C. (1982). Some models for the analysis of association in multiway cross-classifications having ordered categories. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 77, 803–815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clogg, C. C. (1982). Using association models in sociological research: some examples. American Journal of Sociology, 88, 115–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clogg, C. C. (1986). Statistical modeling versus singular value decomposition. International Statistical Review, 54, 284–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clogg, C. C., Eliason, S. R., Wahl, R. J. (1990). Labor-market experience and labor-force outcomes. American Journal of Sociology, 84, 53–62.Google Scholar
Faust, K., Wasserman, S. (1993). Correlation and association models for studying measurements on ordinal relations. Sociological Methodology, 23, 177–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilula, Z., Haberman, S. J. (1988). The analysis of multiway contingency tables by restricted canonical and restricted association models. Journal of the American Statistical Association, Theory and Methods, 83, 760–771.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 canonical correlation models in the analysis of cross-classifications having ordered categories. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 76, 320–334.Google Scholar
Goodman, L. A. (1985). The analysis of cross-classified data having ordered and/or unordered categories: Association models, correlation models, and asymmetry models for contingency tables with or without missing entries. The Ananls of Statistics, 13, 10–69.Google Scholar
Goodman, L. A. (1986). Some useful extensions of the usual correspondence analysis approach and the usual log-linear models approach in the analysis of contingency tables. International Statistical Review, 54, 243–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodman, L. A. (1991). Measures, models, and graphical displays in the analysis of cross-classified data. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 86, 1085–1111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harshman, R. A., Lundy, M. E. (1984). The PARAFAC model for three-way factor analysis and multidimensional scaling. In Law, H. G., Synder, C. W., Hattie, J., McDonald, R. P. (Eds.), Research methods for multimode data analysis (pp. 122–215). New York, NY: Praeger.Google Scholar
Kapteyn, A., Neudecker, H., Wansbeek, T. (1986). An approach to n-mode component analysis. Psychometrika, 51, 269–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kramer, L., Gottman, J. M. (1992). Becoming a sibling: “With a little help from my friends.”. Developmental Psychology, 28, 685–699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroonenberg, P. M. (1983). Three-mode principal component analysis: Theory and applications, Leiden, The Netherlands: DWSO Press.Google Scholar
Kruskal, J. B. (1984). Multilinear models. In Law, H. G., Synder, C. W., Hattie, J., McDonald, R. P. (Eds.), Research methods for multimode data analysis (pp. 36–62). New York, NY: Praeger.Google Scholar
Mooijaart, A. (1992). Three-factor interaction models by log-trilinear terms in three-way contingency tables. Statistica Applicata, 4, 669–677.Google Scholar
Sherkat, D. E. (1993). Theory and method in religious mobility research. Social Science Research, 22, 208–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, H. L., Garnier, M. A. (1987). Scaling via models for the analysis of association: Social background and educational careers in France. In Clogg, C. C. (Eds.), Sociological methodology (pp. 205–246). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
ten Berg, J. M. F., de Leeuw, J., Kroonenberg, P. M. (1987). Some additional results on principal components analysis of three-mode data by means of alternating least squares algorithms. Psychometrika, 52, 183–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tucker, L. R. (1964). The extension of factor analysis to three-dimensional matrices. In Fredieriksen, N., Gulliksen, H. (Eds.), Contributions to mathematical psychology (pp. 110–127). NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
Tucker, L. R. (1966). Some mathematical notes on three-mode factor analysis. Psychometrika, 31, 279–311.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van der Heijden, P. G. M., de Falguerolles, A., de Leeuw, J. (1989). A combined approach to contingency table analysis using correspondence analysis and log-linear modeling. Applied Statistics, 2, 249–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der Heijden, P. G. M., de Leeuw, J. (1985). Correspondence analysis used complementary to loglinear analysis. Psychometrika, 50, 429–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der Heijden, P. G. M., de Leeuw, J. (1989). Correspondence analysis with special attention to the analysis of panel data and event history data. In Clogg, C. C. (Eds.), Sociological methodology (pp. 43–87). Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Xie, Y. (1991). Model fertility schedules revisited: the log-multiliplicative model approach. Social Science Research, 20, 355–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xie, Y. (1992). The log-multiplicative layer effect model for comparing mobility tables. American Sociological Review, 57, 380–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xie, Y., Pimentel, E. E. (1992). Age patterns of maritial fertility: Revising the Coale-Trussell method. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 87, 977–984.Google Scholar