Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T16:02:09.987Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

More on Contingency Table Analysis, Decision Making Criteria, and the Use of Log Linear Models

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

G. A. Clark
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Read's (1974) discussion of contingency table analysis is amplified. Procedures for model formulation and testing advocated by Fienberg (1970) and Goodman (1968, 1969, 1970) are outlined, contrasted, and used to analyze a corpus of archaeological data. It is argued that Fienberg's approach is better suited to situations in which the behavior of the data can be accurately predicted within fairly narrow limits. The Goodman approach is more appropriate to situations in which the behavior of the data is completely unknown.

Type
Articles
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 41 , Issue 3 , July 1976 , pp. 259 - 273
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 1976

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.)

References

Jr.Hubert M., Blalock, 1972 Social statistics, second edition. McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
Geoffrey A., Clark, 1971a The Asturian of Cantabria: a re-evaluation. Unpublished Ph.D dissertation. Department of Anthropology, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Geoffrey A., Clark, 1971b The Asturian of Cantabria: subsistence base and the evidence for post-Pleistocene climatic shifts. American Anthropologist 73:1244–57.Google Scholar
Geoffrey A., Clark 1974 On the analysis of multidimensional contingency table data using log linear models. In Computer applications in archaeology, edited by Wilcock, J. and Laflin, S., pp. 47–58. University of Birmingham.Google Scholar
David, H. T. 1968 Goodness of fit. International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences 6:199–206.Google Scholar
Fienberg, Stephen 1970 The analysis of multidimensional contingency tables. Ecology 51:419–33.Google Scholar
Goodman, Leo A. 1968 The analysis of cross-classified data: independence, quasi-independence and interactions in contingency tables with or without missing entries. Journal of the American Statistical Association 63:1091–1131.Google Scholar
Goodman, Leo A. 1969 On partitioning x2 and detecting partial association in three-way contingency tables. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 31:486–98.Google Scholar
Goodman, Leo A. 1970 The multivariate analysis of quantitative data: interactions among multiple classifications. Journal of the American Statistical Association 65:226–56.Google Scholar
Haberman, Shelby 1969 CTAB, program in UCSNAP-Statistical Processor, University of Chicago Program Library.Google Scholar
Muller, T. P., and Mayhall, John T. 1971 Analysis of contingency table data on Torus Mandibularis using a log linear model. American Journal of Physical A nthropology 34:149–53.Google Scholar
Read, Dwight 1974 Some comments on typologies in archeology and an outline of a methodology. American Antiquity 39:216–42.Google Scholar
Siegel, Sidney 1956 Nonparametric statistics for the behavioural sciences. McGraw-Hill and Kogakusha, New York and Tokyo.Google Scholar
Sella, Vega del, de Estrada, Ricardo Duque, la, Conde de 1923 El Asturiense: nueva industria pre-neolitica. Comision de Investigaciones Paleontologicas y Prehistoricas, Memoria Num. 32, Museo National de Ciencias Naturales, Madrid.Google Scholar
Wallis, W. A., and Roberts, H. V. 1967 Statistics: a new approach. Free Press, New York.Google Scholar