9.2 – Chi-square contingency tables

Introduction

This page covers a lot of ground to extend our discussion of implementations of the chi-square test to experimental data and introduces several related statistics, including a correlation coefficient for categorical data and an introduction to agreement and reliability measurement statistics.

We begin with contingency tables.

We just completed a discussion about goodness of fit tests, inferences on categorical traits for which a theoretical distribution or expectation is available. We offered Mendelian ratios as an example in which theory provides clear-cut expectations for the distribution of phenotypes in the F₂ offspring generation. This is an extrinsic model — theory external to the study guides in the calculation of expected values — and it reflects a common analytical task in epidemiology.

But for many other kinds of categorical outcomes, no theory is available. Today, most of us accept the link between tobacco cigarette smoking and lung cancer. The evidence for this link was reported in many studies, some better designed than others.

Consider the famous Doll and Hill (1950) report on smoking and lung cancer. They reported (Table IV Doll and Hill 1950), for men with lung cancer, only two out of 649 were non-smokers. In comparison, 27 case-control patients (ie, patients in the hospital but with other ailments, not lung cancer) were nonsmokers, but 622 were smokers (Table 1).

Table 1. Doll and Hill (1950).

A more recent example from the study of the efficacy of St John’s Wort (Hypericum perforatum) as a treatment for major depression (Shelton et al 2001, Apaydin et al. 2016). Of patients who received St. John’s Wort over 8 weeks, 14 were deemed improved while 98 did not improve. In contrast 5 patients who received the placebo were deemed improved while 102 did not improve (Table 2).

Table 2. St. John’s Wort and depression

These kinds of problems are direct extensions of our risk analysis work in Chapter 7. Now, instead of simply describing the differences between case and control groups by Relative Risk Reduction or odds ratios, we instruct how to do inference on the risk analysis problems.

Thus, faced with absence of coherent theory as guide, the data themselves can be used (intrinsic model), and at least for now, we can employ the test.

In this lesson we will learn how to extend the analyses of categorical data to cases where we do not have a prior expectation — we use the data to generate the tests of hypotheses. This would be an intrinsic model. One of the most common two-variable categorical analysis involves 2X2 contingency tables. We may have one variable that is the treatment variable and the second variable is the outcome variable. Some examples provided in Table 3.

Table 3. Some examples of treatment and outcome variables suitable for contingency table analysis.

Table 4 were examples of published studies returned from a quick PubMed search; there are many examples (meta-analysis opportunities!). However, while they all can be analyzed by contingency tables analysis, they are not exactly the same. In some cases, the treatments are fixed effects, where the researcher selects the levels of the treatments (see Ch12.3 and Ch14.3 for discussion about fixed vs random effects in experimental design).

In other cases, each of these treatment variables need not be actual treatments (in the sense that an experiment was conducted), but it may be easier to think about these as types of experiments. These types of experiments can be distinguished by how the sampling from the reference population were conducted. Before we move on to our main purpose, to discuss how to calculate contingency tables, I wanted to provide some experimental design context by introducing two kinds of sampling (Chapter 5.5).

Our first kind of sampling scheme is called unrestricted sampling. In unrestricted sampling, you collect as many subjects (observations) as possible, then assign subjects to groups. A common approach would be to sample with a grand total in mind; for example, your grant is limited and so you only have enough money to make 1000 copies of your survey and you therefore approach 1000 people. If you categorize the subjects into just two categories (eg, Liberal, Conservative), then you have a binomial sample. If instead you classify the subjects a number of variables, eg, Liberal or Conservative, Education levels, income levels, homeowners or renters, etc., then this approach is called multinomial sampling. The point in either case is that you have just utilized a multinomial sampling approach. The aim is to classify your subjects to their appropriate groups after you have collected the sample.

Logically what must follow unrestricted sampling would be restricted sampling. Sampling would be conducted with one set of “marginal totals” fixed. Margins refers to either the row totals or to the column totals. The sampling scheme is referred to as compound multinomial. The important distinction from the other two types is that the number of individuals in one of the categories is fixed ahead of time. For example, in order to determine if smoking influences respiratory health, you approach as many people as possible to obtain 100 smokers.

The contingency table analysis

We introduced the 2×2 contingency table (Table 4) in Chapter 7.

Table 4. 2X2 contingency table

Contingency tables are all of the form (Table 5)

Table 5.  Basic format of a 2X2 table

Regardless of how the sampling occurred, the analysis of the contingency table is the same; mechanically, we have a chi-square type of problem. In both contingency table and the “goodness of fit” Chi-Square analyses the data types are discrete categories. The difference between GOF and contingency table problems is that we have no theory or external model to tell us about what to expect. Thus, we calculate expected values and the degrees of freedom differently in contingency table problems. To learn about how to perform contingency tables we will work through an example, first the long way, and then using a formula and the a, b, c, and d 2X2 table format. Of course, R can easily do contingency tables calculations for us.

Doctors noticed that a new form of Hepatitis (HG, now referred to as GB virus C), was common in some HIV+ populations (Xiang et al 2001). Accompanying the co-infection, doctors also observed an inverse relationship between HG loads and HIV viral loads: patients with high HG titers often had low HIV levels. Thus, the question was whether co-infection alters the outcome of patients with HIV — do HIV patients co-infected with this HG progress to AIDS and mortality at rates different from non-infected HIV patients? I’ve represented the Xiang et al (2001) data in Table 6.

Table 6. Progression of AIDS for patients co-infected with HG [GB virus C], Xiang et al data (2001)

Our question was: Do HIV patients co-infected with this HG progress to AIDS and mortality at rates different from non-infected HIV patients? A typical approach to analyze such data sets is to view the data as discrete categories and analyze with a contingency table. So we proceed.

Setup the table for analysis

Rules of contingency tables (see Kroonenberg and Verbeek 2018). What follows is a detailed walk through setting up and interpreting a 2X2 table. Note that I maintain our a, b, c, d cell order, with row 1 referencing subjects exposed or part of treatment group and row 2 referencing subjects not exposed (or part of the control group), as introduced in Chapter 7.

The Hepatitis G data from Xiang et al 2001 data, arranged in 2X2 format (Table 7).

Table 7.  Format of 2X2 table Xiang et al (2001) dataset.

The data are placed into the cells labeled a, b, c, and d.

Cell a : The number of HIV+ individuals infected with HG that lived beyond the end of the study.

Cell b : The number of HIV+ individuals infected with HG that died during the study.

Cell c : The number of HIV+ individuals not infected with HG that lived.

Cell d : The number of HIV+ individuals not infected with HG that died.

This is a contingency table because the probability of living or dying for these patients may have been contingent on coinfection with hepatitis G.

State the examined hypotheses

H_O: There is NO association between the probability of living and coinfection with hepatitis G.

For a contingency table this means that there should be the same proportion of individuals with and without hepatitis G that either lived or died (1:1:1:1).

Now, compute the Expected Values in the Four cells (a, b, c, d)

1. Calculate the Expected Proportion of Individuals that lived in Entire Sample:
   Column 1 Total / Total = Expected Proportion of those that lived beyond the study.
2. Calculate Expected Proportion of Individuals that died in Entire Sample:
   Column 2 Total / Total = Expected Proportion that died during the study.
3. Calculate the Expected Proportion of Individuals that lived and were HG+
   Expected Proportion of living (step 1 above) x Row 1 Total = Expected For Cell A.
4. Calculate the Expected Proportion of Individuals that died and were HG+
   Expected Proportion died x Row 1 Total = Expected For Cell B
5. Calculate the Expected Proportion of surviving individuals that were HG-
   Expected Proportion lived x Row 2 Total = Expected For Cell C
6. Calculate the Expected Proportion of individuals that died that were HG-
   Expected Proportion that died x Row 2 Total = Expected For Cell D

Yes, this can get a bit repetitive! But, we are now done — remember, we’re working through this to review how the intrinsic model is applied to obtain expected values.

To summarize what we’ve done so far, we now have

Observations arranged in a 2X2 table

Calculated the expected proportions, ie, the Expected values under the Null Hypothesis.

Now, we proceed to conduct the chi-square test of the null hypothesis — The observed values may differ from these expected values, meaning that the Null Hypothesis is False.

Table 8. Copy Table 6 data set

Get the Expected Values

1. Calculate the Expected Proportion of Individuals that lived in Entire Sample:
   Column 1 Total (198) / Total (362) = 0.5470
2. Calculate Expected Proportion of Individuals that died in Entire Sample:
   Column 2 Total (164) / Total (362) = 0.4530
3. Calculate the Expected Proportion of Individuals that lived and were HG+
   Expected Proportion of living (0.547) x Row 1 Total (218) = Cell A = 119.25
4. Calculate the Expected Proportion of Individuals that died and were HG+
   Expected Proportion died (0.453) x Row 1 Total (218) = Cell B = 98.75.
5. Calculate the Expected Proportion of surviving individuals that were HG-
   Expected Proportion lived (0.547) x Row 2 Total (144) = Cell C = 78.768
6. Calculate the Expected Proportion of individuals that died that were HG-
   Expected Proportion that died 0(.453) X Row 2 Total = Cell D = 65.232

Thus, we have (Table 9)

Table 9. Expected values for Xiang et al (2001) data set (Table 6 and Table 8)

Now we are ready to calculate the Chi-Square Value

Recall the formula for the chi-square test

Table 10. Worked contingency table for Xiang et al (2001) data set (Table 6 and Table 8)

Cell
a	(103 – 87.768)2 = 78.768	7.4547
b	(41 – 65.232)2 = 65.232	9.002
c	(95 – 119.25)2 = 119.25	4.93134
d	(123 – 98.75)2 = 98.75	5.95506
		27.3452

Adding all the parts we have the chi-square test statistic . To proceed with the inference, we test using the chi-square distribution.

Determine the Critical Value of test and evaluate the null hypothesis

Now recall that we can get the critical value of this test in one of two (related!) ways. One, we could run this through our statistical software and get the p-value, the probability of our result and the null hypothesis is true. Second, we look up the critical value from an appropriate statistical table. Here, we present option 2.

We need the Type I error rate α and calculate the degrees of freedom for the problem. By convention, we set α = 0.05. Degrees of freedom for contingency table is calculated as

Degrees of Freedom = (# rows – 1) x (# columns – 1)

and for our example → DF = (2 – 1) x (2 – 1) = 1.

Note. How did we get the 1 degree of freedom? Aren’t there 4 categories and shouldn’t we therefore have k – 1 = 3 df? We do have four categories, yes, but the categories are not independent. We need to take this into account when we evaluate the test and this lack of independence is accounted for by the loss of degrees of freedom.

What exactly is not independent about our study?

1. 1. The total number of observations is set in advance from the data collection.
   2. We also have the column and row totals set in advance. The number of HIV individuals with or without Hepatitis G infection was determined at the beginning of the experiment. The number of individuals that lived or died was also determined before we we conducted the test.
   3. Then the first cell (let us make that cell A) can still vary anywhere from 0 to N _i (sample size of the first drug).
   4. Once the first cell (A) is determined then the next cell in that row (B) will have to add up to N _i.
   5. Also the other cell in the same column as the first cell (C) must add up to the Column 1 Total.
   6. Lastly, the last cell (D) must have the Row 1 Total add up to the correct number.

All this translates into there being only one cell that is FREE TO VARY, hence, only one degree of freedom.

Get the Critical Value from a chi-square distribution table: For our example, look up the critical value for DF = 1, α = 0.05, you should get 3.841. The 3.841 is the value of the chi-square we would expect at 5% and the null hypothesis is in fact true condition in the population.

Once we obtain the critical value we simply use the previous statement regarding the probability of the Null Hypothesis being TRUE. We Reject the Null Hypothesis when the calculated test statistic is greater than the Critical Value. We Accept the Null Hypothesis when the calculated  is less than the Critical Value. In our example we got 27.3452 for our calculated test statistic, thus we reject the null hypothesis and conclude, that, at least for the sample in this study, there was an association between the probability of patients living past the study period and the presence of hepatitis G.

from a, b, c, and d 2X2 table format formula

If a hand calculation is required, a simpler formula to use is

where N is the sum of all observations in the table, r₁ and r₂ are the marginal row totals, and c₁ and c₂ are the marginal column totals from the 2×2 contingency table (eg, Table 4). If you are tempted to try this in a spreadsheet, and assuming your entries for a, b, c, d, and N look like Table 11, then a straightforward interpretation requires referencing five spreadsheet cells no less than 13 times! Not to mention a separate call to the distribution to calculate the p-value (one tailed test).

Table 11. Example spreadsheet with formulas for odds ratio (OR), Pearson’s , and p-value from distribution.

	A	B	C	D	E	F	G
1
2	a	103			OR	=(2*5)/(3*4)
3	b	41
4	c	95
5	d	123			chisq, p	=(((2*5-3*4)^2)*6)/ (SUM(2:3)*SUM(4:5)* SUM(2,4)*SUM(3,5))	=CHIDIST(F5,1)
6	N	632

Now, let’s see how easy this is to do in R.

effect size

Inference on hypotheses about association, there’s statistical significance — evaluate p-value compared to Type I error, eg, 5% — and then there’s biological importance, the strength of the association. The concept of effect size is an attempt to communicate the likely importance of a result. Several statistics are available to communicate effect size: for that’s φ, phi for the φ (phi) coefficient.

where N is the total. Phi for our example is

R code

sqrt(27.3452/362)

and R returns

[1] 0.274844

Effect size statistics typically range from 0 to 1; Cohen (1992) suggested the following interpretation

Table 12. Cohen’s interpretation of d values.

For our example, effect size of the association between co-infection with GB virus C and mortality was weak in the patients with HIV infection. The function phi() in psych package will calculate phi coefficient from a 2X2 table.

Agreement, kappa, and inter-rater reliability

I imagine by now you have made the leap — can we use the contingency table to assess agreement between (inter-) two judges (raters) who evaluate the same object? A naive approach would be to calculate simple agreement, the percent of objects in the list of items evaluated for which both judges agree (concur). For a binomial Yes or No, then agreement (concordance) occurs when both judges report “Yes,” or both report “No,” displayed on the main diagonal of the 2X2 table. The other possible combinations (Yes vs No and No vs Yes) are disagreement (discordance) and would be displayed on the off-diagonal of the 2X2 matrix.

Unfortunately, simple agreement, while intuitive, cannot discriminate between true agreement and agreement by chance. Cohen’s kappa (Cohen 1960, McHugh 2012) is used to assess agreement, aka inter-rater reliability, for binomial and nominal data types for two judges (raters). Cohen’s 1960 paper has been enormously impactful, with more than 53K citations (Google Scholar, Fall 2024), and spawned a number of additional measures of agreement, eg, weighted kappa for more than binomial levels, Fleiss kappa for three or more raters, ICC for ratio scale, discussed in Ch12.3). It’s beyond the scope of this text to review the context of such terms as agreement, and reliability, for just two terms used to evaluate results from two independent observers of the “same” event or object, and leave that to the reader to confirm how to report such endeavors.

Off we go. Cohen’s kappa is defined as

where p_o is the proportion in agreement and p_c is proportion of agreement expected by chance. Essentially, then, interpretable kappa values fall between 0 and 1 (0% to 100%); negative kappa estimates are possible.  Cohen (1960) noted that for kappa to equal 1, the off diagonal elements would all have to be zero.

Cohen provided an estimate of the standard error for kappa as

and 95% confidence intervals are then .

Here, we review calculation of simple agreement and Cohen’s kappa, with just the two levels. Both simple agreement and Cohen’s kappa (κ), are available in R via the icc package. Cohen’s kappa is also available in the psych package, with the cohen.kappa() function providing a confidence interval estimate directly.

Use of both is illustrated here with a simulated coin toss example modified from a nice 2018 summary of Cohen’s kappa at r-bloggers. The R code

library(irr)
# simulate some data
N = 24
flips1 <- rbinom(n = N, size = 1, prob = 0.5)
flips2 <- rbinom(n = N, size = 1, prob = 0.5)
coins<-cbind(flips1, flips2)

Confirm the data set.

head(coins)  
flips1 flips2 
[1,] 0 1 
[2,] 1 0 
[3,] 1 0 
[4,] 1 1 
[5,] 0 0 
[6,] 1 0

and create a 2X2 table.

I stacked the data

head(StackedCoin)
Side Coins    HT
1 0 flips1 tails
2 1 flips1 heads
3 1 flips1 heads
4 1 flips1 heads
5 0 flips1 tails
6 1 flips1 heads

then created a simple 2×2 table (see Note 6 below for a simple explanation for why “.Table” as a named object).

.Table <- xtabs(~Coins+HT, data=StackedCoin)

Table 13. coins as 2X2 table.

We can calculate the phi coefficient for Table 13.

phi(.Table, digits = 3)
[1] -0.167

and would conclude no correlation between the two sets of coin tosses.

Now, agreement statistics. Both agree() and kappa2() expect an unstacked (wide) data format. It’s not necessary, but we’ll call a value of 1 as “heads up” and a value of 0 as “tails up” of the tossed coin.

Next, simple agreement.

agree(coins, tolerance=0)

R returns

Subjects = 24 
Raters = 2 
%-agree = 41.7

Now, a proper agreement statistic.

kappa2(coins) 

and R returns

Subjects = 24 
Kappa = -0.135
z = -0.7 
p-value = 0.484

Results with psych:cohen.kappa, which provides the 95% confidence interval as default output.

Cohen Kappa and Weighted Kappa correlation coefficients and confidence boundaries 
                 lower estimate upper
unweighted kappa -0.51    -0.14  0.24
weighted kappa   -0.51    -0.14  0.24
Number of subjects = 24

By chance, the two independent toss of 24 coins had 10 rows of “agreement” (H:H or T:T), simply due to chance. However, results of kappa find no agreement between the two sets of coin tosses.

In summary, we see that simple agreement and the kappa statistic don’t return similar results. Percent agreement reported 41%, whereas kappa was zero. We know percent agreement can’t reflect anything in the coin toss case because each toss is independent from the next. We’ll have you explore repeated trials of coin tosses to help convince you that simple agreement is not a reliable measure of agreement (see question 6 below).

Interpreting agreement values is not straightforward, and some argue agreement statistics should be avoided in favor of disagreement measures (for example, see discussion in Pontius and Millones 2011). Cohen suggested (Table 14)

Table 14. Landis and Koch’s (1977) interpretation of Cohen’s kappa.

Even a cursory look at Table 14 should lead to questions about scenarios in which a range of agreement “substantial” would provide little comfort about the agreement between the judges or the reliability of the instrument used, for example forensic cases or histology of tissue biopsies.

Contingency table analyses in Rcmdr

Assuming you have already summarized the data, you can enter the data directly in the Rcmdr contingency table form. If your data are not summarized, then you would use Rcmdr's Two-way table… for this. We will proceed under the assumption that you have already obtained the frequencies for each cell in the table.

Rcmdr: Statistics → Contingency tables → Enter and analyze two-way table…

Here you can tell R how many rows and how many columns (Fig 1).

Figure 1. Screenshot R Commander menu for 2X2 data entry with counts.

The default is a 2X2 table. For larger tables, use the sliders to increase the number of rows, columns, or both.

Next, enter the counts. You can edit every cell in this table, including the headers. In the next panel, I will show you the data entry and options. The actual calculation of the test statistic is done when you select the “Chi-square test of independence” check-box (Fig 2).

Figure 2. Display of Xiang et al data entered into R Commander menu.

After entering the data, click on the Statistics tab (Fig 3).

Figure 3. Screenshot Statistics options for contingency table.

If you also select “Components of chi-square statistic” option, then R will show you the contributions of each cell (O-E) towards the chi-square test statistic value. This is helpful to determine if rejection of the null is due to a subset of the categories, and it also forms the basis of the heterogeneity tests, a subject we will pick up in the next section.

Here’s the R output from R Commander. Note the “2, 2, byrow=TRUE” instructions (check out R help to confirm what

.Table <- matrix(c(103,41,95,123), 2, 2, byrow=TRUE)
dimnames(.Table) <- list("rows"=c("HG+", "HG-"), "columns"=c("Lived", "Died"))

.Table # Counts
     columns
rows Lived Died
 HG+   103   41
 HG-   95   123

.Test <- chisq.test(.Table, correct=FALSE)
.Test

Pearson's Chi-squared test

data: .Table
X-squared = 27.339, df = 1, p-value = 0.0000001708

round(.Test$residuals^2, 2) # Chi-square Components
    columns
rows Lived Died
HG+   7.46 9.00
HG-   4.93 5.95

remove(.Test)
remove(.Table)

end R output.

Lots of output, take a deep breath and remember… The minimum output we need to look at is… (Table 15)?

Table 15. Minimally expected outcome for report from a statistical test.

We can see that the p-value 1.7^-7 is much less than Type 1 α = 0.05, thus, by our decision criterion we reject the null hypothesis (provisionally of course, as science goes).

myNumber = 0.0000001708
format(myNumber, scientific = TRUE, digits=2)

[1] "1.7e-07"

Questions

1. Instead of R Commander, try the contingency table problem in R directly.

   myData <- matrix(c(103,41,95,123))
   chisq.test(myData)

   Is this the correct contingency table analysis? Why or why not?

2. For many years National Football League games that ended in ties went to “sudden death,” where the winner was determined by the first score in the extra period of play, regardless of whether or not the other team got an opportunity to possess the ball on offense. Thus, in more than 100 games (140), the team that won the coin toss and therefore got the ball first in overtime, won the game following either a kicked field goal or after a touchdown was scored. In 337 other games under this system, the outcome was not determined by who got the ball first. Many complained that the “sudden death” format was unfair and in 2013 the NFL changed its overtime rules. Beginning 2014 season, both teams got a chance to possess the ball in overtime, unless the team that won the coin toss also went on to score a touchdown at which time that team would be declared the winner. In this new era of over-time rules ten teams that won the coin toss went on to score a touchdown in their first possession and therefore win the game, whereas in 54 other overtime games, the outcome was decided after both teams had a chance on offense (data as of 1 December 2015). These data may be summarized in the table
   

   	First possession win?
   	Yes	No
   Coin flip years	140	337
   New era	10	54

   A. What is the null hypothesis?
   B. Which is more appropriate: to calculate an odds ratio or to calculate an RRR?
   C. This is a contingency table problem. Explain why
   D. Conduct the test of the null hypothesis.
   E. What is the value of the test statistic? Degrees of freedom? P-value?
   F. Evaluate the results of your analysis — do you accept or reject the null hypothesis?

3. Return to the Doll and Hill (1950) data: 2 men with lung cancer were nonsmokers, 647 men with lung cancer were cigarette smokers. In comparison, 27 case-control patients (ie, patients in the hospital but with other ailments, not lung cancer) were nonsmokers, but 622 were cigarette smokers.
   A. What is the null hypothesis?
   B. Which is more appropriate: to calculate an odds ratio or to calculate an RRR?
   C. This is a contingency table problem. Explain why
   D. Conduct the test of the null hypothesis.
   E. What is the value of the test statistic? Degrees of freedom? P-value?
   F. Evaluate the results of your analysis — do you accept or reject the null hypothesis?
4. A more recent example from the study of the efficacy of St John’s Wort as a treatment for major depression (Shelton et al 2001). Of patients who received St. John’s Wort over 8 weeks, 14 were deemed improved while 98 did not improve. In contrast 5 patients who received the placebo were deemed improved while 102 did not improve.
   A. What is the null hypothesis?
   B. Which is more appropriate: to calculate an odds ratio or to calculate an RRR?
   C. This is a contingency table problem. Explain why
   D. Conduct the test of the null hypothesis.
   E. What is the value of the test statistic? Degrees of freedom? P-value?
   F. Evaluate the results of your analysis — do you accept or reject the null hypothesis?
5. Return to the coin toss simulation and repeat comparisons between simple agreement and Cohen’s kappa for different values of N. Do you see any trend(s) for the two measures as sample size increases or decreases?
6. Repeat the coin toss simulation for N = 24 up to five times, each time calculate simple agreement and Cohen’s kappa. Provide a table of your five results plus the example, and generalize simple agreement vs Cohen’s kappa as a reliable measure of agreement. Hint: you may want to use Descriptive statistics to help make your case.

Quiz Chapter 9.2

Chi-square contingency tables

Start Quiz

Question

✕

✓

Your answer:

Correct answer:

Next

Please wait..

↺

You got {{SCORE_CORRECT}} out of {{SCORE_TOTAL}}

Your Answers

Chapter 9 contents

• Introduction
• Chi-square test: Goodness of fit
• Chi-square contingency tables
• Yates continuity correction
• Heterogeneity chi-square tests
• Fisher exact test
• McNemar’s test
• References and suggested readings

9.1 – Chi-square test: Goodness of fit

Introduction

We ask about the “fit” of our data against predictions from theory, or from rules that set our expectations for the frequency of particular outcomes drawn from outside the experiment. Three examples to illustrate goodness of fit, GOF, , A, B, and C follow.

A. For example, for a toss of a coin, we expect heads to show up 50% of the time. Out of 120 tosses of a fair coin, we expect 60 heads, 60 tails. Thus, our null hypothesis would be that heads would appear 50% of the time. If we observe 70 heads in an experiment of coin tossing, is this a significantly large enough discrepancy to reject the null hypothesis?

B. For example, simple Mendelian genetics makes predictions about how often we should expect particular combinations of phenotypes in the offspring when the phenotype is controlled by one gene, with 2 alleles and a particular kind of dominance.

For example, for a one locus, two allele system (one gene, two different copies like R and r) with complete dominance, we expect the phenotypic (what you see) ratio will be 3:1 (or round, wrinkle). Our null hypothesis would be that pea shape will obey Mendelian ratios (3:1). Mendel’s round versus wrinkled peas (RR or Rr genotypes give round peas, only rr results in wrinkled peas).

Thus, out of 100 individuals, we would expect 75 round and 25 wrinkled. If we observe 84 round and 16 wrinkled, is this a significantly large enough discrepancy to reject the null hypothesis?

C. For yet another example, in population genetics, we can ask whether genotypic frequencies (how often a particular copy of a gene appears in a population) follow expectations from Hardy-Weinberg model (the null hypothesis would be that they do).

This is a common test one might perform on DNA or protein data from electrophoresis analysis. Hardy-Weinberg is a simple quadratic expansion:

If p = allele frequency of the first copy, and q = allele frequency of the second copy, then p + q = 1,

Given the allele frequencies, then genotypic frequencies would be given by 1 = p² + 2pq + q².

Deviations from Hardy-Weinberg expectations may indicate a number of possible causes of allele change (including natural selection, genetic drift, migration).

Thus, if a gene has two alleles, and , with the frequency for , and for ,  (equivalently q = 1 – p) in the population, then we would expect 36 , 16 , and 48 individuals. (Nothing changes if we represent the alleles as A and a, or some other system, eg, dominance/recessive.)

Question. If we observe the following genotypes: 45  individuals, 34 individuals, and 21 individuals, is this a significantly large enough discrepancy to reject the null hypothesis?

Table 1. Summary of our Hardy Weinberg question

Recall from your genetics class that we can get the allele frequency values from the genotype values, eg,

We call these chi-square tests, tests of goodness of fit. Because we have some theory, in this case Mendelian genetics, or guidance, separate from the study itself, to help us calculate expected values in a chi-square test.

goodness of fit

For k groups, the equation for the chi-square test may be written as

where f_i is the frequency (count) observed (in class i) and f_i<hat> is the frequency (count) expected if the null hypothesis is true, sum over all k groups. Alternatively, here is a format for the same equation that may be more familiar to you… ?

where O_i is the frequency (count) observed (in class i) and E_i is the frequency (count) expected if the null hypothesis is true.

The degrees of freedom, df, for the GOF are simply the number of categories minus one, k – 1.

Explaining GOF

Why am I using the phrase “goodness of fit?” This concept has broad use in statistics, but in general it applies when we ask how well a statistical model fits the observed data.

At least for the chi-square test it is simple to see how the test statistic increases from zero as the agreement between observed data and expected data depart, where zero would be the case in which all observed values for the categories exactly match the expected values.

The goodness of fit test is designed to evaluate whether or not your data agree with a theoretical expectation (there are additional ways to think about this test, but this is a good place to start). Let’s take our time here and work with an example. The other type of chi-square problem or experiment is one for the many types of experiments in which the response variable is discrete, just like in the GOF case, but we have no theory to guide us in deciding how to obtain the expected values. We can use the data themselves to calculate expected values, and we say that the test is “contingent” upon the data, hence these types of chi-square tests are called contingency tables.

You may be a little concerned at this point that there are two kinds of chi-square problems, goodness of fit and contingency tables. We’ll deal directly with contingency tables in the next section, but for now, I wanted to make a few generalizations.

1. Both goodness of fit and contingency tables use the same chi-square equation and analysis. They differ in how the degrees of freedom are calculated.
2. Thus, what all chi-square problems have in common, whether goodness of fit or contingency table problems
   1. You must identify what types of data are appropriate for this statistical procedure? Categorical (nominal data type).
   2. As always, a clear description of the hypotheses being examined.

For goodness of fit chi-square test, the most important type of hypothesis is called a Null Hypothesis: In most cases the Null Hypothesis (H_O) is “no difference” “no effect”…. If H_O is concluded to be false (rejected), then an alternative hypothesis (H_A) will be assumed to be true. Both are specified before tests are conducted. All possible outcomes are accounted for by the two hypotheses.

From above, we have

A. H_O: Fifty out of 100 tosses will result in heads.

H_A: Heads will not appear 50 times out of 100.

B. H_O: Pea shape will equal Mendelian ratios (3:1).

H_A: Pea shape will not equal Mendelian ratios (3:1).

C. H_O: Genotypic frequencies will equal Hardy-Weinberg expectations.

H_A: Genotypic frequencies will not equal Hardy-Weinberg expectations

Assumptions: In order to use the chi-square, there must be two or more categories. Each observation must be in one and only one category. If some of the observations are truly halfway between two categories then you must make a new category (eg, low, middle, high) or use another statistical procedure. Additionally, your expected values are required to be integers, not ratio. The number of observed and the number of expected must sum to the same total.

The chi-square test is a good example of such tests, and we will encounter other examples too. Another common goodness of fit is the coefficient of determination, which will be introduced in linear regression sections (see Chapter 17.7 – Regression model fit). Still other examples are the likelihood ratio test (LRT), Akaike Information Criterion (AIC), and Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC), which are all used to assess fit of models to data. (See Graffelman and Weir [2018] for how to use AIC in the context of testing for Hardy Weinberg equilibrium.)

The likelihood ratio test is used to compare the goodness of fit of two hierarchically nested models to determine if a more complex model provides a significantly better fit to the data. It does this by forming a ratio of the likelihood of the data under the two models (the simpler “null” model and the more complex “alternative” model). A small ratio suggests the simpler model is a poor fit, while a value close to one indicates the added complexity is not statistically significant. AIC (and BIC) is a measure of relative fit — it balances goodness of fit and model complexity: A lower AIC suggests a better model by finding the optimal trade-off between fitting the data well and keeping the model simple. A model that is too complex will have a higher AIC than a simpler model with a nearly as good fit.

We use LRT, AIC and BIC when we talk about selecting best regression models (see Chapter 17.7 – Regression model fit). However, as we discuss the concept of comparing models, we need to distinguish between the concept of model choice — methods used to select a best model from competing options and estimating the “goodness of fit” of a single model.

How well does data fit the prediction?

Frequentist approach interprets the test as, how well does the data fit the null hypothesis, ? When you compare data against a theoretical distribution (eg, Mendel’s hypothesis predicts the distribution of progeny phenotypes for a particular genetic system), you test the fit of the data against the model’s predictions (expectations). Recall that the Bayesian approach asks how well does the model fit the data?

Table 2. A. 120 tosses of a coin, we count heads 70/120 tosses.

Table 3. B. A possible Mendelian system of inheritance for a one gene, two allele system with complete dominance, observe the phenotypes.

Table 4. C. A possible Mendelian system of inheritance for a one gene, two allele system with complete dominance, observe the phenotypes.

For completeness, instead of a goodness of fit test we can treat this problem as a test of independence, a contingency table problem. We’ll discuss contingency tables more in the next section, but or now, we can rearrange our table of observed genotypes for problem C, as a 2X2 table

Table 5. Problem C reported in 2X2 table format.

The contingency table is calculated the same way as the GOF version, but the degrees of freedom are calculated differently: df = number of rows – 1 multiplied by the number of columns – 1.

Thus, for a 2X2 table the df are always equal to 1.

Note that the chi-square value itself says nothing about how any discrepancy between expectation and observed genotype frequencies come about. Therefore, one can rearrange the  equation to make clear where deviance from equilibrium, D, occur for the heterozygote (het). We have

where D² is equal to

φ coefficient

The chi-square test statistic and its inference tells you about the significance of the association, but not the strength or effect size of the association. Not surprisingly, Pearson (1904) came up with a statistic to quantify the strength of association between two binary variables, now called the φ (phi) coefficient. Like the Pearson product moment correlation, the φ (phi) coefficient takes values from -1 to +1.

The formula for the absolute value of φ coefficient is

Thus, for A, B, and C examples, φ coefficient was 0.167, 0.190, and 0.771. Thus, only weak associations in examples A and B, but strong association in C. We’ll provide a formula to directly calculate φ coefficient from the cells of the table in 9.2 – Chi-square contingency tables.

Carry out the test and interpret results

What was just calculated? The chi-square, , test statistic.

Just like t-tests, we now want to compare our test statistic against a critical value — calculate degrees of freedom (df = k – 1, k equals the numbers of categories), and set a rejection level, Type I error rate. We typically set the Type I error rate at 5%. A table of critical values for the chi-square test is available in Appendix Table Chi-square critical values.

Obtaining Probability Values for the goodness-of-fit test of the null hypothesis:

As you can see from the equation of the chi-square, a perfect fit between the observed and the expected would be a chi-square of zero. Thus, asking about statistical significance in the chi-square test is the same as asking if your test statistic is significantly greater than zero.

The chi-square distribution is used and the critical values depend on the degrees of freedom. Fortunately for  and other statistical procedures we have Tables that will tell us what the probability is of obtaining our results when the null hypothesis is true (in the population).

Here is a portion of the chi-square critical values for probability that your chi-square test statistic is less than the critical value (Fig 1).

Figure 1. A portion of critical values of the chi-square at alpha 5% for degrees of freedom between 1 and 10. A more inclusive table is provided in the Appendix, Table of Chi-square critical values.

For the first example (A), we have df = 2 – 1 = 1 and we look up the critical value corresponding to the probability in which Type I = 5% are likely to be smaller iff (“if and only if”) the null hypothesis is true. That value is 3.841; our test statistic was 3.330, and therefore smaller than the critical value: so we do not reject the null hypothesis.

Interpolating p-values

How likely is our test statistic value of 3.333 and the null hypothesis was true? (Remember, “true” in this case is a shorthand for our data was sampled from a population in which the HW expectations hold). When I check the table of critical values of the chi-square test for the “exact” p-value, I find that our test statistic value falls between a p-value 0.10 and 0.05 (represented in the table below). We can interpolate

Table 6. Interpolated p-value for critical value not reported in chi-square table.

If we assume the change in probability between 2.706 and 3.841 for the chi-square distribution is linear (it’s not, but it’s close), then we can do so simple interpolation.

We set up what we know on the right hand side equal to what we don’t know on the left hand side of the equation,

and solve for x. Then, x is equal to 0.0724

R function pchisq() gives a value of p = 0.0679. Close, but not the same. Of course, you should go with the result from R over interpolation; we mention how to get the approximate p-value by interpolation for completeness, and, in some rare instances, you might need to make the calculation. Interpolating is also a skill used to provide estimates where the researcher needs to estimate (impute) a missing value.

Interpreting p-values

This is a pretty important topic, so much so that we devote an entire section to this very problem — see 8.2 – The controversy over proper hypothesis testing. If you skipped the chapter, but find yourself unsure how to interpret the p-value, then please go back to Ch 8.2. OK, that commercial message, what does it mean to “reject the chi-square null hypothesis?” These types of tests are called goodness of fit in the following sense — if your data agree with the theoretical distribution, then the difference between observed and expected should be very close to zero. If it is exactly zero, then you have a perfect fit. In our coin toss case, if we say that the ratio of heads:tails do not differ significantly from the 50:50 expectation, then we accept the null hypothesis.

You should try the other examples yourself! A hint, the degrees of freedom are one (1) for example B and two (2) for example C.

R code

Printed tables of the critical values from the chi-square distribution, or for any statistical test for that matter are fine, but with your statistical package R and Rcmdr, you have access to the critical value and the p-value of your test statistic simply by asking. Here’s how to get both.

First, let’s get the critical value.

Rcmdr: Distributions → Continuous distributions → Chi-squared distribution → Chi-squared quantiles (Fig 2).

Figure 2. R Commander menu for Chi-squared quantiles.

I entered “0.05” for the probability because that’s my Type I error rate α. Enter “1” for Degrees of freedom, then click “upper tail” because we are interested in obtaining the critical value for α. Here’s R’s response when I clicked “OK.”

qchisq(c(0.05), df=1, lower.tail=FALSE)
[1] 3.841459

Next, let’s get the exact P-value of our test statistic. We had three from three different tests:  for the coin-tossing example, for the pea example, and for the Hardy-Weinberg example.

Rcmdr: Distributions → Continuous distributions → Chi-squared distribution → Chi-squared probabilities… (Fig 3).

Figure 3. R Commander menu for Chi-squared probabilities.

I entered “3.333” because that is one of the test statistics I want to calculate for probability and “1” for Degrees of freedom because I had k – 1 = 1 df for this problem. Here’s R’s response when I clicked “OK.”

pchisq(c(3.333), df=1, lower.tail=FALSE)
[1] 0.06790291

I repeated this exercise for  I got ; for I got .

Nice, right? Saves you from having to interpolate probability values from the chi-square table.

3. How to get the goodness of fit  in Rcmdr.

R provides the goodness of fit  (the command is chisq.text()), but Rcmdr thus far does not provide a menu option to link to the function. Instead, R Commander provides a menu for contingency tables, which also is a chi-square test, but is used where no theory is available to calculate the expected values (see Chapter 9.2). Thus, for the goodness of fit chi-square, we will need to bypass Rcmdr in favor of the script window. Honestly, other options are as quick or quicker: calculate by hand, use a different software (eg, Microsoft Excel), or many online sites provide JavaScript tools.

So how to get the goodness of fit chi-square while in R? Here’s one way. At the command line, type

chisq.test (c(O1, O2, ... On), p = c(E1, E2, ... En))

where O1, O2, … On are observed counts for category 1, category 2, up to category n, and E1, E2, … En are the expected proportions for each category. For example, consider our Heads/Tails example above (problem A).

In R, we write and submit

chisq.test(c(70,30),p=c(1/2,1/2))

R returns

Chi-squared test for given probabilities.
data: c(70, 30) 
X-squared = 16, df = 1, p-value = 0.00006334

Easy enough. But not much detail — details are available with some additions to the R script. I’ll just link you to a nice website that shows how to add to the output so that it looks like the one below.

mike.chi <- chisq.test(c(70,30),p=c(1/2,1/2))

Let’s explore one at time the contents of the results from the chi square function.

names(mike.chi)   #The names function 
[1] "statistic" "parameter" "p.value" "method" "data.name" "observed"
[7] "expected" "residuals" "stdres"

Now, call each name in turn.

mike.chi$residuals
[1] 2.828427 -2.828427
mike.chi$obs
[1] 70 30
mike.chi$exp
[1] 50 50

And finally, let’s get the summary output of our statistical test.

mike.chi
Chi-squared test for given probabilities.
data: c(70, 30)
X-squared = 16, df = 1, p-value = 6.334e-05

GOF and spreadsheet apps

Easy enough with R, but it may even easier with other tools. I’ll show you how to do this with spreadsheet apps and with and online at graphpad.com.

Let’s take the pea example above. We had 16 wrinkled, 84 round. We expect 25% wrinkled, 75% round.

Now, with R, we would enter

chisq.test(c(16,80),p=c(1/4,3/4))

and the R output

Chi-squared test for given probabilities
data: c(16, 80)
X-squared = 3.5556, df = 1, p-value = 0.05935

Microsoft Excel and the other spreadsheet programs (Apple Numbers, Google Sheets, LibreOffice Calc) can calculate the goodness of fit directly; they return a P-value only. If the observed data are in cells A1 and A2, and the expected values are in B1 and B2, then use the procedure =CHITEST(A1:A2,B1:B2).

Table 7. A spreadsheet with formula visible.

The P-value (but not the Chi-square test statistic) is returned. Here’s the output from Calc.

Table 8. Spreadsheet example from Table 7 with calculated P-value.

You can get the critical value from MS Excel (=CHIINV(alpha, df), returns the critical value), and the exact probability for the test statistic =CHIDIST(x,df), where x is your test statistic. Putting it all together, a general spreadsheet template for goodness of fit calculations calculations of test statistic and p-value might look like

Table 9. Spreadsheet template with formula to calculate chi-square goodness of fit on two groups.

	A	B	C	D	E
1	f1	0.75
2	f2	0.25
3	N	=SUM(A5,A6)
4	Obs	Exp	Chi.value	Chi.sqr
5	80	=B1*3	=((A5-B5)^2)/B5	=SUM(C5,C6)
6	16	=B2*3	=((A6-B6)^2)/B6		=CHIDIST(D5, COUNT(A5:A6-1)
7
8

Microsoft Excel can be improved by writing macros, or by including available add-in programs, such as the free PopTools, which is available for Microsoft Windows 32-bit operating systems only.

Another option is to take advantage of the internet — again, many folks have provided java or JavaScript-based statistical routines for educational purposes. Here’s an easy one to use www.graphpad.com.

In most cases, I find the chi-square goodness-of-fit is so simple to calculate by hand that the computer is redundant.

Questions

1. A variety of p-values were reported on this page with no attempt to reflect significant figures or numbers of digits (see Chapter 8.2). Provide proper significant figures and numbers of digits as if these p-values were reported in a science journal.

1. 0.0724
2. 0.0679
3. 0.03766692
4. 0.004955794
5. 0.00006334
6. 6.334e-05
7. 0.05935
8. 0.058714340077662

2. For a mini bag of M&M candies, you count 4 blue, 2 brown, 1 green, 3 orange, 4 red, and 2 yellow candies.

1. What are the expected values for each color?
2. Calculate using your favorite spreadsheet app (eg, Numbers, Excel, Google Sheets, LibreOffice Calc)
3. Calculate using R (note R will reply with a warning message that the “Chi-squared approximation may be incorrect”; see 9.2 Yates continuity correction)
4. Calculate using Quickcalcs at graphpad.com
5. Construct a table and compare p-values obtained from the different applications

3. CYP1A2 enzyme involved with metabolism of caffeine. Folks with C at SNP rs762551 have higher enzyme activity than folks with A. Populations differ for the frequency of C. Using R or your favorite spreadsheet application, compare the following populations against global frequency of C is 33% (frequency of A is 67%).

1. 286 persons from Northern Sweden: f(C) = 26%, f(A) = 73%
2. 4532 Native Hawaiian persons: f(C) = 22%, f(A) = 78%
3. 1260 Native American persons: f(C) = 30%, f(A) = 70%
4. 8316 Native American persons: f(C) = 36%, f(A) = 64%
5. Construct a table and compare p-values obtained for the four populations.

Quiz Chapter 9.1

Chi-square test: Goodness of fit

Start Quiz

Question

✕

✓

Your answer:

Correct answer:

Next

Please wait..

↺

You got {{SCORE_CORRECT}} out of {{SCORE_TOTAL}}

Your Answers

Chapter 9 contents

• Introduction
• Chi-square test: Goodness of fit
• Chi-square contingency tables
• Yates continuity correction
• Heterogeneity chi-square tests
• Fisher exact test
• McNemar’s test
• References and suggested readings