IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/jedbes/v14y1989i1p47-79.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Testing Independence in 2 × 2 Contingency Tables

Author

Listed:
  • Neal E. A. Kroll

Abstract

Three of the potential models for the 2 × 2 contingency table are discussed: the hyper geometric Independence Trial, the double-binomial Comparative Trial, and the multinomial Double Dichotomy Trial. Then the critical regions of seven statistical tests are evaluated within each of these models. The uncorrected Pearson’s Chi-Square test and Upton’s correction are found to be overly liberal in all three models, particularly for the hypergeometric. A continuity correction, when properly applied, is shown to be an extremely good approximation to Fisher’s Exact test, which employs the hypergeometric distribution to evaluate outcome probabilities—but is an extremely conservative approximation to the double binomial and multinomial models. Haber’s test is recommended for these two cases, but the amount of work required may be prohibitive for many investigators.

Suggested Citation

  • Neal E. A. Kroll, 1989. "Testing Independence in 2 × 2 Contingency Tables," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 14(1), pages 47-79, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:jedbes:v:14:y:1989:i:1:p:47-79
    DOI: 10.3102/10769986014001047
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.3102/10769986014001047
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.3102/10769986014001047?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:jedbes:v:14:y:1989:i:1:p:47-79. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.