More than two groups:

ANOVA and Chi-square

First, recent news…
 RESEARCHERS FOUND A NINE-
FOLD INCREASE IN THE RISK
OF DEVELOPING PARKINSON'S
IN INDIVIDUALS EXPOSED IN
THE WORKPLACE TO CERTAIN
SOLVENTS…
 The data…
Table 3. Solvent Exposure Frequencies and Adjusted Pairwise
Odds Ratios in PD–Discordant Twins, n = 99 Pairsa
 Which statistical test?
Are the observations correlated? Alternative to the
Outcom independent correlated chi-square test if
e sparse cells:
Variable

Binary or Chi-square test: McNemar’s chi-square Fisher’s exact test:

categorical compares proportions test: compares binary compares proportions between
between two or more outcome between correlated independent groups when
(e.g. groups there are sparse data (some
groups (e.g., before and after)
fracture, cells <5).
yes/no)
Relative risks: odds Conditional logistic
ratios or risk ratios McNemar’s exact test:
regression: multivariate
compares proportions between
regression technique for a
correlated groups when there
Logistic regression: binary outcome when groups
are sparse data (some cells
multivariate technique are correlated (e.g., matched
<5).
data)
used when outcome is
binary; gives multivariate-
adjusted odds ratios GEE modeling: multivariate
regression technique for a
binary outcome when groups
Comparing more than two
groups…
 Continuous outcome
(means)
Are the observations independent or correlated?
Outcome independent correlated Alternatives if the
Variable normality assumption is
violated (and small
sample size):

Continuous Ttest: compares means Paired ttest: compares Non-parametric statistics

(e.g. pain between two independent means between two related Wilcoxon sign-rank
groups groups (e.g., the same test: non-parametric
scale, subjects before and after)
cognitive alternative to the paired ttest
function) ANOVA: compares means
between more than two Repeated-measures Wilcoxon sum-rank test
independent groups ANOVA: compares changes (=Mann-Whitney U test):
over time in the means of two non-parametric alternative to
Pearson’s correlation or more groups (repeated the ttest
measurements)
coefficient (linear
correlation): shows linear Kruskal-Wallis test: non-
correlation between two Mixed models/GEE parametric alternative to
continuous variables modeling: multivariate ANOVA
regression techniques to
compare changes over time
Linear regression: between two or more groups; Spearman rank
 ANOVA example
Mean micronutrient intake from the school lunch by school
S1a, n=28 S2b, n=25 S3c, n=21 P-valued
Calcium (mg) Mean 117.8 158.7 206.5 0.000
SDe 62.4 70.5 86.2
Iron (mg) Mean 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.854
SD 0.6 0.6 0.6
Folate (μg) Mean 26.6 38.7 42.6 0.000
SD 13.1 14.5 15.1
Zinc (mg) Mean 1.9 1.5 1.3 0.055
SD 1.0 1.2 0.4
a
School 1 (most deprived; 40% subsidized lunches). FROM: Gould R, Russell J,
Barker ME. School lunch
b
School 2 (medium deprived; <10% subsidized). menus and 11 to 12 year
old children's food choice
c
School 3 (least deprived; no subsidization, private school). in three secondary schools
in England-are the
d
ANOVA; significant differences are highlighted in bold (P<0.05). nutritional standards being
met? Appetite. 2006
ANOVA
(ANalysis Of VAriance)
 Idea: For two or more groups, test
difference between means, for
quantitative normally distributed
variables.
 Just an extension of the t-test (an
ANOVA with only two groups is
mathematically equivalent to a t-
test).
 One-Way Analysis of
Variance

 Assumptions, same as ttest

 Normally distributed outcome

 Equal variances between the

groups
 Groups are independent
 Hypotheses of One-Way
ANOVA

H 0 : μ 1 μ 2 μ 3 

H 1 : Not all of the population means are the same

ANOVA
 It’s like this: If I have three groups
to compare:
 I could do three pair-wise ttests, but
this would increase my type I error
 So, instead I want to look at the
pairwise differences “all at once.”
 To do this, I can recognize that
variance is a statistic that let’s me look
at more than one difference at a
time…
 The “F-test”
Is the difference in the means of the groups more
than background noise (=variability within groups)?
Summarizes the mean differences
between all groups at once.

Variabilit y between groups

F
Variabilit y within groups

Analogous to pooled variance from a

ttest.
Recall, we have already used an “F-test” to check for equality of variances If F>>1
(indicating unequal variances), use unpooled variance in a t-test.
 The F-distribution
 The F-distribution is a continuous probability distribution
that depends on two parameters n and m (numerator and
denominator degrees of freedom, respectively):

http://www.econtools.com/jevons/java/Graphics2D/FDist.html
 The F-distribution
 A ratio of variances follows an F-
distribution: 2
 between
2
~ Fn ,m
 within
The F-test tests the hypothesis that two
variances are equal.
F will be close to 1 if sample variances are
equal. H : 2  2
0 between within
2 2
H a :  between  within
How to calculate ANOVA’s
by hand…
Treatment 1 Treatment 2 Treatment 3 Treatment 4
y11 y21 y31 y41
y12 y22 y32 y42
n=10 obs./group
y13 y23 y33 y43
y14 y24 y34 y44 k=4 groups
y15 y25 y35 y45
y16 y26 y36 y46
y17 y27 y37 y47
y18 y28 y38 y48
y19 y29 y39 y49
y110 y210 y310 y410
10


10 10 10
y1 j
y 2j y 3j y 4j The group
j 1 j 1
y1  y 2 
j 1
y 3 
j 1 y 4  means
10 10 10 10
10 10 10

10
( y 2 j  y 2 ) 2  (y  (y
 (y  y 4 ) 2
2
1j  y1 ) 2
3j  y 3 ) 4j
j 1 j 1 j 1 j 1 The (within)
10  1 10  1 10  1 10  1 group
variances
 Sum of Squares Within
(SSW), or Sum of Squares
Error (SSE)
10 10 10
 (y
10 2
 (y 1j  y1 ) 2
j 1
2j  y 2 )  (yj 1
3j  y 3 ) 2
 (y
j 1
4j  y 4 ) 2
The (within)
j 1
group
10  1 10  1 10  1 10  1 variances

10 10
10 10

 (y 1j  y1 ) 2
+  ( y 2 j  y 2 ) 2 +  ( y 3 j  y 3 ) + 2
 (y
j 1
4j  y 4 ) 2
j 1 j 3
j 1

4 10
 
i 1 j 1
( y ij  y i  ) 2 Sum of Squares Within (SSW)
(or SSE, for chance error)
 Sum of Squares Between (SSB),
or Sum of Squares Regression
(SSR)
4 10
Overall
mean of all  y
i 1 j 1
ij
40
observation y 
s (“grand 40
mean”)

4 Sum of Squares

10 x  (y
i 1
i  y ) 2 Between (SSB).
Variability of the
group means
compared to the
grand mean (the
variability due to the
treatment).
Total Sum of Squares
(SST)

Total sum of
4 10 squares(TSS).


i 1 j 1
( y ij  y   ) 2 Squared difference
of every observation
from the overall
mean. (numerator of
variance of Y!)
 Partitioning of Variance

4 10 4 4 10
  (y
i 1 j 1
ij  y i ) 2

+10x ( y i  y  ) 2
=  ( y ij  y   ) 2
i 1 i 1 j 1

SSW + SSB =
TSS
 ANOVA Table
Mean Sum
Source of Sum of of Squares
variation d.f. squares F-statistic p-value

Between k-1 SSB SSB/k-1 Go to

SSB
(sum of squared k1
(k groups) SSW Fk-1,nk-k
deviations of nk  k
group means from chart
grand mean)

Within nk-k SSW s2=SSW/nk-k

(sum of squared
(n individuals per
deviations of
group)
observations from
their group mean)

Total nk-1 TSS

variation (sum of squared deviations of
observations from grand mean) TSS=SSB + SSW
 n n
X n  Yn 2 X  Yn 2
SSB n (X n  ( ))  n (Yn  ( n ))  
ANOVA=t-test i 1 2 i 1 2
n n
X n Yn 2 Y X

n (
i 1 2
 )  n ( n  n )2
2 i 1 2 2

X n 2 Yn 2 X *Y Y X X *Y
n(( )  ( )  2 n n  ( n )2  ( n )2  2 n n ) 
2 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 2
n( X n  2 X n * Yn  Yn ) n( X n  Yn )
Mean
Source of Sum of Sum of
variation d.f. squares Squares F-statistic p-value

Between 1 SSB Squared Go to

n( X  Y ) 2 (X  Y ) 2 2
( ) (t 2 n  2 )
(2 groups) (squared difference sp
2
sp
2
sp
2 F1, 2n-2
differenc in means n

n Chart
e in times n notice
means values
multiplie are just
d by n) (t 2n-2)2
Within 2n-2 SSW Pooled
variance
equivalent to
numerator of
pooled
variance

Total 2n-1 TSS

variation
 Example
Treatment 1 Treatment 2 Treatment 3 Treatment 4
60 inches 50 48 47
67 52 49 67
42 43 50 54
67 67 55 67
56 67 56 68
62 59 61 65
64 67 61 65
59 64 60 56
72 63 59 60
71 65 64 65
 Example
Step 1) calculate the
Treatment 1 Treatment 2 Treatment 3 Treatment 4
sum of squares between
60 inches 50 48 47
groups: 67 52 49 67
42 43 50 54
67 67 55 67
Mean for group 1 = 62.0 56 67 56 68
62 59 61 65
Mean for group 2 = 59.7 64 67 61 65

Mean for group 3 = 56.3 59 64 60 56

72 63 59 60
Mean for group 4 = 61.4 71 65 64 65

Grand mean= 59.85

SSB = [(62-59.85)2 + (59.7-59.85)2 + (56.3-59.85)2 + (61.4-59.85)2 ]
xn per group= 19.65x10 = 196.5
 Example
Step 2) calculate the
Treatment 1 Treatment 2 Treatment 3 Treatment 4
sum of squares within
60 inches 50 48 47
groups: 67 52 49 67
42 43 50 54
67 67 55 67
(60-62) +(67-62) + (42-
2 2
56 67 56 68
62) 2+ (67-62) 2+ (56-62) 62 59 61 65
2
+ (62-62) 2+ (64-62) 2+ 64 67 61 65

(59-62) 2+ (72-62) 2+ (71- 59 64 60 56

72 63 59 60
62) 2+ (50-59.7) 2+ (52-
71 65 64 65
59.7) 2+ (43-59.7) 2+67-
59.7) 2+ (67-59.7) 2+ (69-
59.7) 2…+….(sum of 40
squared deviations) =
2060.6
 Step 3) Fill in the ANOVA
table
Source of variation d.f. Sum of squares Mean Sum of F-statistic p-value
Squares

Between 3 196.5 65.5 1.14 .344

Within 36 2060.6 57.2

Total 39 2257.1
 Step 3) Fill in the ANOVA
table
Source of variation d.f. Sum of squares Mean Sum of F-statistic p-value
Squares

Between 3 196.5 65.5 1.14 .344

Within 36 2060.6 57.2

Total 39 2257.1

INTERPRETATION of ANOVA:
How much of the variance in height is explained by treatment
group?
 Coefficient of
Determination

2 SSB SSB
R  
SSB  SSE SST
The amount of variation in the outcome variable (dependent
variable) that is explained by the predictor (independent
variable).
Beyond one-way ANOVA
Often, you may want to test more
than 1 treatment. ANOVA can
accommodate more than 1
treatment or factor, so long as they
are independent. Again, the
variation partitions beautifully!

TSS = SSB1 + SSB2 + SSW

 ANOVA example
Table 6. Mean micronutrient intake from the school lunch by school
S1a, n=25 S2b, n=25 S3c, n=25 P-valued
Calcium (mg) Mean 117.8 158.7 206.5 0.000
SDe 62.4 70.5 86.2
Iron (mg) Mean 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.854
SD 0.6 0.6 0.6
Folate (μg) Mean 26.6 38.7 42.6 0.000
SD 13.1 14.5 15.1
Mean 1.9 1.5 1.3 0.055
Zinc (mg)
SD 1.0 1.2 0.4
a
School 1 (most deprived; 40% subsidized lunches). FROM: Gould R, Russell J,
Barker ME. School lunch
b
School 2 (medium deprived; <10% subsidized). menus and 11 to 12 year
old children's food choice
c
School 3 (least deprived; no subsidization, private school). in three secondary schools
in England-are the
d
ANOVA; significant differences are highlighted in bold (P<0.05). nutritional standards being
met? Appetite. 2006
 Answer
Step 1) calculate the sum of squares between groups:
Mean for School 1 = 117.8
Mean for School 2 = 158.7
Mean for School 3 = 206.5

Grand mean: 161

SSB = [(117.8-161)2 + (158.7-161)2 + (206.5-161)2] x25 per

group= 98,113
 Answer
Step 2) calculate the sum of squares within groups:

S.D. for S1 = 62.4

S.D. for S2 = 70.5
S.D. for S3 = 86.2

Therefore, sum of squares within is:

(24)[ 62.42 + 70.5 2+ 86.22]=391,066
 Answer
Step 3) Fill in your ANOVA table

Source of variation d.f. Sum of squares Mean Sum of F-statistic p-value

Squares
Between 2 98,113 49056 9 <.05

Within 72 391,066 5431

Total 74 489,179

**R2=98113/489179=20%
School explains 20% of the variance in lunchtime calcium
intake in these kids.
ANOVA summary
 A statistically significant ANOVA (F-
test) only tells you that at least two of
the groups differ, but not which ones
differ.

 Determining which groups differ (when

it’s unclear) requires more
sophisticated analyses to correct for
the problem of multiple comparisons…
Question: Why not just
do 3 pairwise ttests?
 Answer: because, at an error rate of 5% each test, this
means you have an overall chance of up to 1-(.95)3=
14% of making a type-I error (if all 3 comparisons
were independent)
 If you wanted to compare 6 groups, you’d have to do
C = 15 pairwise ttests; which would give you a high
6 2
chance of finding something significant just by chance
(if all tests were independent with a type-I error rate of
5% each); probability of at least one type-I error = 1-
(.95)15=54%.
Recall: Multiple
comparisons
Correction for multiple
comparisons
How to correct for multiple comparisons
post-hoc…
• Bonferroni correction (adjusts p by most

conservative amount; assuming all tests

independent, divide p by the number of
tests)
• Tukey (adjusts p)

• Scheffe (adjusts p)

• Holm/Hochberg (gives p-cutoff beyond

which not significant)

Procedures for Post Hoc
Comparisons
If your ANOVA test identifies a difference between
group means, then you must identify which of your k
groups differ.

If you did not specify the comparisons of interest

(“contrasts”) ahead of time, then you have to pay a price
for making all kCr pairwise comparisons to keep overall
type-I error rate to α.

Alternately, run a limited number of planned comparisons (making only

those comparisons that are most important to your research question).
(Limits the number of tests you make).
 1. Bonferroni
For example, to make a Bonferroni correction, divide your desired
alpha cut-off level (usually .05) by the number of comparisons you
are making. Assumes complete independence between comparisons,
which is way too conservative.
Obtained P-value Original Alpha # tests New Alpha Significant?

.001 .05 5 .010 Yes

.011 .05 4 .013 Yes

.019 .05 3 .017 No

.032 .05 2 .025 No

.048 .05 1 .050 Yes

2/3. Tukey and Sheffé
 Both methods increase your p-values to
account for the fact that you’ve done
multiple comparisons, but are less
conservative than Bonferroni (let
computer calculate for you!).

 SAS options in PROC GLM:


adjust=tukey

adjust=scheffe
4/5. Holm and Hochberg
 Arrange all the resulting p-values
(from the T=kCr pairwise
comparisons) in order from
smallest (most significant) to
largest: p1 to pT
Holm
1. Start with p1, and compare to Bonferroni p (=α/T).
2. If p1< α/T, then p1 is significant and continue to step 2.
If not, then we have no significant p-values and stop
here.
3. If p2< α/(T-1), then p2 is significant and continue to step.
If not, then p2 thru pT are not significant and stop here.
4. If p3< α/(T-2), then p3 is significant and continue to step
If not, then p3 thru pT are not significant and stop here.
Repeat the pattern…
 Hochberg
1. Start with largest (least significant) p-value, pT,
and compare to α. If it’s significant, so are all
the remaining p-values and stop here. If it’s not
significant then go to step 2.
2. If pT-1< α/(T-1), then pT-1 is significant, as are all
remaining smaller p-vales and stop here. If not,
then pT-1 is not significant and go to step 3.
Repeat the pattern…
Note: Holm and Hochberg should give you the same results.
Use Holm if you anticipate few significant comparisons; use
Hochberg if you anticipate many significant comparisons.
 Practice Problem
A large randomized trial compared an experimental drug and 9 other standard
drugs for treating motion sickness. An ANOVA test revealed significant
differences between the groups. The investigators wanted to know if the
experimental drug (“drug 1”) beat any of the standard drugs in reducing total
minutes of nausea, and, if so, which ones. The p-values from the pairwise ttests
(comparing drug 1 with drugs 2-10) are below.

Drug 1 vs. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
drug …

p-value .05 .3 .25 .04 .001 .006 .08 .002 .01

a. Which differences would be considered statistically significant using a Bonferroni

correction? A Holm correction? A Hochberg correction?
 Answer
Bonferroni makes new α value = α/9 = .05/9 =.0056; therefore, using Bonferroni, the
new drug is only significantly different than standard drugs 6 and 9.

Arrange p-values:
6 9 7 10 5 2 8 4 3

.00 .00 .00 .01 .04 .05 .08 .25 .3

1 2 6

Holm: .001<.0056; .002<.05/8=.00625; .006<.05/7=.007; .01>.05/6=.0083; therefore,

new drug only significantly different than standard drugs 6, 9, and 7.

Hochberg: .3>.05; .25>.05/2; .08>.05/3; .05>.05/4; .04>.05/5; .01>.05/6; .006<.05/7;

therefore, drugs 7, 9, and 6 are significantly different.
Practice problem
 b. Your patient is taking one of the standard drugs that was
shown to be statistically less effective in minimizing
motion sickness (i.e., significant p-value for the
comparison with the experimental drug). Assuming that
none of these drugs have side effects but that the
experimental drug is slightly more costly than your
patient’s current drug-of-choice, what (if any) other
information would you want to know before you start
recommending that patients switch to the new drug?
Answer
 The magnitude of the reduction in minutes of nausea.
 If large enough sample size, a 1-minute difference could
be statistically significant, but it’s obviously not clinically
meaningful and you probably wouldn’t recommend a
switch.
 Continuous outcome
(means)
Are the observations independent or correlated?
Outcome independent correlated Alternatives if the
Variable normality assumption is
violated (and small
sample size):

Continuous Ttest: compares means Paired ttest: compares Non-parametric statistics

(e.g. pain between two independent means between two related Wilcoxon sign-rank
groups groups (e.g., the same test: non-parametric
scale, subjects before and after)
cognitive alternative to the paired ttest
function) ANOVA: compares means
between more than two Repeated-measures Wilcoxon sum-rank test
independent groups ANOVA: compares changes (=Mann-Whitney U test):
over time in the means of two non-parametric alternative to
Pearson’s correlation or more groups (repeated the ttest
measurements)
coefficient (linear
correlation): shows linear Kruskal-Wallis test: non-
correlation between two Mixed models/GEE parametric alternative to
continuous variables modeling: multivariate ANOVA
regression techniques to
compare changes over time
Linear regression: between two or more groups; Spearman rank
Non-parametric ANOVA
Kruskal-Wallis one-way ANOVA
(just an extension of the Wilcoxon Sum-Rank
(Mann Whitney U) test for 2 groups; based on
ranks)

Proc NPAR1WAY in SAS

 Binary or categorical
outcomes (proportions)
Are the observations correlated? Alternative to the
Outcom independent correlated chi-square test if
e sparse cells:
Variable

Binary or Chi-square test: McNemar’s chi-square Fisher’s exact test:

categorical compares proportions test: compares binary compares proportions between
between two or more outcome between correlated independent groups when
(e.g. groups there are sparse data (some
groups (e.g., before and after)
fracture, cells <5).
yes/no)
Relative risks: odds Conditional logistic
ratios or risk ratios McNemar’s exact test:
regression: multivariate
compares proportions between
regression technique for a
correlated groups when there
Logistic regression: binary outcome when groups
are sparse data (some cells
multivariate technique are correlated (e.g., matched
<5).
data)
used when outcome is
binary; gives multivariate-
adjusted odds ratios GEE modeling: multivariate
regression technique for a
binary outcome when groups
 Chi-square test
for comparing proportions
(of a categorical variable)
between >2 groups
I. Chi-Square Test of Independence
When both your predictor and outcome variables are categorical, they may be cross-
classified in a contingency table and compared using a chi-square test of
independence.

A contingency table with R rows and C columns is an R x C contingency table.

Example
 Asch, S.E. (1955). Opinions and
social pressure. Scientific
American, 193, 31-35.
The Experiment
 A Subject volunteers to participate
in a “visual perception study.”
 Everyone else in the room is
actually a conspirator in the study
(unbeknownst to the Subject).
 The “experimenter” reveals a pair
of cards…
The Task Cards

Standard line Comparison lines

A, B, and C
The Experiment
 Everyone goes around the room and says
which comparison line (A, B, or C) is
correct; the true Subject always answers
last – after hearing all the others’ answers.
 The first few times, the 7 “conspirators”
give the correct answer.
 Then, they start purposely giving the
(obviously) wrong answer.
 75% of Subjects tested went along with
the group’s consensus at least once.
Further Results
 In a further experiment, group size
(number of conspirators) was
altered from 2-10.

 Does the group size alter the

proportion of subjects who
conform?
 The Chi-Square test

Number of group members?

Conformed?
2 4 6 8 10

Yes 20 50 75 60 30

No 80 50 25 40 70

Apparently, conformity less likely when less or more group

members…
 20 + 50 + 75 + 60 + 30 = 235
conformed
 out of 500 experiments.

 Overall likelihood of conforming =

235/500 = .47
Calculating the expected,
in general
 Null hypothesis: variables are
independent
 Recall that under independence:
P(A)*P(B)=P(A&B)
 Therefore, calculate the marginal
probability of B and the marginal
probability of A. Multiply
P(A)*P(B)*N to get the expected cell
count.
 Expected frequencies if no
association between group
size and conformity…
Number of group members?
Conformed?
2 4 6 8 10

Yes 47 47 47 47 47

No 53 53 53 53 53
 Do observed and expected differ
more than expected due to
chance?
 Chi-Square test
(observed - expected)2
 
2

expected

2 (20  47) 2 (50  47) 2 (75  47) 2 (60  47) 2 (30  47) 2
4      
47 47 47 47 47
(80  53) 2 (50  53) 2 (25  53) 2 (40  53) 2 (70  53) 2
    85
53 53 53 53 53

Degrees of freedom = (rows-1)*(columns-1)=(2-1)*(5-1)=4

The Chi-Square
distribution:
is sum of squared normal deviates
df
 2 df  Z 2 ; where Z ~ Normal(0,1)
i 1

The expected
value and
variance of a chi-
square:

E(x)=df

Var(x)=2(df)
 Chi-Square test
(observed - expected)2
 
2

expected

2 (20  47) 2 (50  47) 2 (75  47) 2 (60  47) 2 (30  47) 2
4      
47 47 47 47 47
(80  53) 2 (50  53) 2 (25  53) 2 (40  53) 2 (70  53) 2
    85
53 53 53 53 53

Degrees of freedom = (rows-1)*(columns-1)=(2-1)*(5-1)=4

Rule of thumb: if the chi-square statistic is much greater than it’s degrees of freedom,
indicates statistical significance. Here 85>>4.
Chi-square example: recall data…

Brain tumor No brain tumor

Own a cell 5 347 352

phone
Don’t own a 3 88 91
cell phone

8 435 453
5 3
ptumor / cellphone  .014; ptumor / nophone  .033
352 91
(pˆ1  p
ˆ2)  0 8
Z  ;p .018
( p )(1  p ) ( p )(1  p ) 453

n1 n2
(.014  .033)  .019
Z    1.22
(.018)(.982) (.018)(.982) .0156

352 91
Same data, but use Chi-square
test
Brain tumor No brain tumor
Own 5 347 352
Don’t own 3 88 91

8 435 453
8 352
ptumor  .018; pcellphone  .777 Expected value
453 453 in cell c= 1.7, so
ptumor xpcellphone .018 * .777 .014 technically
Expected in cell a .014 * 453 6.3; 1.7 in cell c; should use a
Fisher’s exact
345.7 in cell b; 89.3 in cell d
here! Next
(R-1 )*(C-1 ) 1*1 1 df term…
2 (8 - 6.3) 2 (3 - 1.7) 2 (89.3 - 88) 2 (347 - 345.7) 2
 1    1.48
6.3 1.7 89.3 345.7
NS
note :Z 2 1.22 2 1.48
Caveat
**When the sample size is very
small in any cell (expected
value<5), Fisher’s exact test is
used as an alternative to the chi-
square test.
 Binary or categorical
outcomes (proportions)
Are the observations correlated? Alternative to the
Outcom independent correlated chi-square test if
e sparse cells:
Variable

Binary or Chi-square test: McNemar’s chi-square Fisher’s exact test:

categorical compares proportions test: compares binary compares proportions between
between two or more outcome between correlated independent groups when
(e.g. groups there are sparse data (np <5).
groups (e.g., before and after)
fracture,
yes/no)
Relative risks: odds Conditional logistic McNemar’s exact test:
ratios or risk ratios compares proportions between
regression: multivariate
correlated groups when there
regression technique for a
are sparse data (np <5).
Logistic regression: binary outcome when groups
multivariate technique are correlated (e.g., matched
data)
used when outcome is
binary; gives multivariate-
adjusted odds ratios GEE modeling: multivariate
regression technique for a
binary outcome when groups