Tests of ignoring and eliminating in nonsymmetric correspondence analysis. (English) Zbl 1306.62136

Summary: Nonsymmetric correspondence analysis (NSCA) aims to examine predictive relationships between rows and columns of a contingency table. The predictor categories of such tables are often accompanied by some auxiliary information. Constrained NSCA (CNSCA) incorporates such information as linear constraints on the predictor categories. However, imposing constraints also means that part of the predictive relationship is left unaccounted for by the constraints. A method of NSCA is proposed for analyzing the residual part along with the part accounted for by the constraints. The CATANOVA test may be invoked to test the significance of each part. The two tests parallel the distinction between tests of ignoring and eliminating, and help gain some insight into what is known as Simpson’s paradox in the analysis of contingency tables. Two examples are given to illustrate the distinction.


62H25 Factor analysis and principal components; correspondence analysis
62H17 Contingency tables
62H15 Hypothesis testing in multivariate analysis


bootstrap; sedaR
Full Text: DOI


[1] Agresti A (2002) Categorical data analysis, 2nd edn. Wiley, New York · Zbl 1018.62002
[2] Anderson MJ, Gribble NA (1998) Partitioning the variation among spatial, temporal and environmental components in a multivariate data set. Aust J Ecol 23: 158–167
[3] Anderson RJ, Landis JR (1980) CATANOVA for multidimensional contingency tables: nominal-scale response. Commun Stat A-Theor 11: 1191–1205 · Zbl 0463.62064
[4] Blyth CR (1972) On Simpson’s paradox and the sure-thing principle. J Am Statist Assoc 67: 364–366 · Zbl 0245.62008
[5] Bocard D, Legendre P, Drapeau P (1992) Partialling out the spatial component of ecological variation. Ecology 73: 1045–1055
[6] Böckenholt U, Böckenholt I (1990) Canonical analysis of contingency tables with linear constraints. Psychometrika 55: 633–639 · Zbl 04501411
[7] Böckenholt U, Takane Y (1994) Linear constraints in correspondence analysis. In: Greenacre JM, Blasius J (eds) Correspondence analysis in social sciences. Academic Press, London, pp 112–127
[8] Cheng PE, Liou JW, Liou M, Aston JAD (2006) Data information in contingency tables: a fallacy of hierarchical loglinear models. J Data Sci 4: 387–398
[9] D’Ambra L, Beh EJ, Amenta P (2005) CATANOVA for two-way contingency tables with ordinal variables using orthogonal polynomials. Commun Stat A-Theor 34: 1755–1769 · Zbl 1075.62057
[10] D’Ambra L, Lauro NC (1989) Nonsymmetric correspondence analysis for three-way contingency tables. In: Coppi R, Bolasco S (eds) Multiway data analysis. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 301–315
[11] Efron B, Tibshirani RJ (1993) An introduction to the bootstrap. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida · Zbl 0835.62038
[12] Gilula Z, Haberman SJ (1988) The analysis of contingency tables by restricted canonical and restricted association models. J Am Stat Assoc 83: 760–771 · Zbl 0662.62063
[13] Goodman L, Kruskal W (1954) Measures of association for cross-classifications. J Am Stat Assoc 49: 732–764 · Zbl 0056.12801
[14] Gray LN, Williams JS (1981) Goodman and Kruskal’s tau b: multiple and partial analogs. Soc Methods Res 10: 50–62
[15] Greenacre MJ (1984) Theory and applications of correspondence analysis. Academic Press, London · Zbl 0555.62005
[16] Hoerl KE, Kennard RW (1970) Ridge regression: biased estimation for nonorthogonal problems. Technometrics 12: 55–67 · Zbl 0202.17205
[17] Hwang H, Takane Y (2002) Generalized constrained multiple correspondence analysis. Psychometrika 67: 215–228 · Zbl 1297.62134
[18] Khatri CG (1966) A note on a MANOVA model applied to problems in growth curves. Ann I Stat Math 18: 75–86 · Zbl 0136.40704
[19] Lauro NC, D’Ambra L (1984) Nonsymmetric correspondence analysis. In: Diday E et al (eds) Data analysis and informatics. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 433–446
[20] Legendre P, Legendre L (1998) Numerical ecology, 2nd edn. Elsevier, Oxford · Zbl 1033.92036
[21] Light RJ, Margolin BH (1971) An analysis of variance for categorical data. J Am Stat Assoc 66: 534–544 · Zbl 0222.62035
[22] Margolin BH, Light RJ (1974) An analysis of variance of categorical data II. Small samples comparisons with chi-square and other competitors. J Am Stat Assoc 69: 755–764 · Zbl 0294.62071
[23] Maxwell SE, Delaney HD (2004) Designing experiements analyzing data, 2nd edn. Earlbaum Associates, Mahwah
[24] Økland RH (2003) Partitioning the variation in a plot-by-species data matrix that is related to n sets of explanatory variables. J Veg Sci 14: 693–700
[25] Ramsay JO (1978) Confidence regions for multidimensional scaling analysis. Psychometrika 43: 145–160 · Zbl 0384.62045
[26] Shapiro SH (1982) Collapsing contingency tables–a geometric approach. Am Stat 36: 43–46
[27] Simpson EH (1951) The interpretation of interaction in contingency tables. Am Stat 13: 238–241 · Zbl 0045.08802
[28] Takane Y, Hunter MA (2001) Constrained principal component analysis. Appl Algeb Eng Comm Comput 12: 391–419 · Zbl 1040.62050
[29] Takane Y, Hwang H (2006) Regularized multiple correspondence analysis. In: Blasius J, Greenacre MJ (eds) Multiple correspondence analysis and related methods. Chapman and Hall, London, pp 259–279 · Zbl 1277.62161
[30] Takane Y, Jung S (2009) Regularized nonsymmetric correspondence analysis. Comput Stat Data An 53: 3159–3170 · Zbl 1453.62213
[31] Takane Y, Shibayama T (1991) Principal component analysis with external information on both subjects and variables. Psychometrika 56: 97–120 · Zbl 0725.62055
[32] Takane Y, Yanai H (1999) On oblique projectors. Linear Algebra Appl 289: 297–310 · Zbl 0930.15003
[33] Takane Y, Yanai H, Mayekawa S (1991) Relationships among several methods of linearly constrained correspondence analysis. Psychometrika 56: 667–684 · Zbl 0760.62057
[34] ter Braak CJF (1986) Canonical correspondence analysis: a new eigenvector technique for multivariate direct gradient analysis. Ecology 67: 1167–1179
[35] ter Braak CJF (1988) Partial canonical correspondence analysis. In: Bock HH (eds) Classification and related methods of data analysis. North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp 551–558
[36] van der Heijden PGM, de Leeuw J (1985) Correspondence analysis used complementary to loglinear analysis. Psychometrika 50: 429–447 · Zbl 0616.62082
[37] van der Heijden PGM, Meijerink F (1989) Generalized correspondence analysis of multi-way contingency tables and multi-way (super-) indicator matrices. In: Coppi R, Bolasco S (eds) Multiway data analysis. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 185–202
[38] Wermuth N (1987) Parametric collapsibility and the lack of moderating effects in contingency tables with a dichotomous response variable. J Roy Stat Soc B 49: 353–364 · Zbl 0636.62049
[39] Yule GU (1903) Notes on the theory of association of attributes in statistics. Biometrika 2: 121–134
This reference list is based on information provided by the publisher or from digital mathematics libraries. Its items are heuristically matched to zbMATH identifiers and may contain data conversion errors. It attempts to reflect the references listed in the original paper as accurately as possible without claiming the completeness or perfect precision of the matching.