Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-j7cmm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-11T02:44:37.183Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comment on “Correspondence Analysis used Complementary to Loglinear Analysis”

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Peter G. M. van der Heijden  and
Keith J. Worsley
Peter G. M. van der Heijden*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychometrics, University of Leiden
Keith J. Worsley
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics and Statistics, McGill University
*
Requests for reprints should be sent to P. G. M. van der Heijden, Department of Psychometrics, University of Leiden, Hooigracht 15, 2312KM Leiden, THE NETHERLANDS.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In van der Heijden and de Leeuw (1985) it was proposed to use loglinear analysis to detect interactions in a multiway contingency table, and to explore the form of these interactions with correspondence analysis. After performing the exploratory phase of the analysis, we will show here how the results found in this phase can be used for confirmation.

Keywords

loglinear modelsassociation modelscorrespondence analysisdata analysisexplorationconfirmation

Information

Type
Notes And Comments
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 53 , Issue 2 , June 1988 , pp. 287 - 291
Copyright
Copyright © 1988 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

This research was conducted while the authors were visiting the Laboratoire de Statistique et Probabilité, Universite Paul Sabatier, Toulouse. This visit was partly made possible by a joint grant of the Netherlands Organisation for the Advancement of Pure Research (Z.W.O.) and the French National Center for Scientific Research (C.N.R.S.). For helpful comments, the authors are indebted to H. Caussinus, J. de Leeuw, and two anonymous reviewers.

References

Bonett, D. G., Bentler, P. M. (1983). Goodness-of-fit procedure for the evaluation and selection of log-linear models. Psychological Bulletin, 93, 149–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Leeuw, J., van der Heijden, P. G. M. (1988). Correspondence analysis of incomplete tables. Psychometrika, 53, 223–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Escoufier, Y. (1982). L'analyse des tableaux de contingence simples et multiples [The analysis of simple and multiple contingency tables]. Metron, 40, 53–77.Google Scholar
Goodman, L. A. (1981). Association models and canonical correlation 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. Annals of Statistics, 13, 10–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodman, L. A. (1986). Some useful extensions of the usual correspondence analysis approach and the usual log-linear model approach in the analysis of contingency tables. International Statistical Review, 54, 243–309.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