A FORTRAN program to calculate exact probabilities for first-, second-, and third-order interactions in 2×2×2×2 contingency tables with fixed marginals is presented. Computational speed and accuracy are assured with the use of an arbitrary constant for the initial table and recursively defined values for all subsequent tables.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BartlettM. S. (1935) Contingency table interactions. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Supplement, 2, 248–252.
2.
BhapkarY. P., & KochG. G. (1968) On the hypothesis of ‘no interaction’ in contingency tables. Biometrika, 24, 567–594.
3.
DarrochJ. N. (1962) Interactions in multi-factor contingency tables. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 24, 251–263.
4.
DarrochJ. N. (1974) Multiplicative and additive interaction in contingency tables. Biometrika, 61, 207–214.
5.
HaberM. (1983) Sample sizes for the exact test of ‘no interaction’ in 2×2×2 tables. Biometrics, 39, 493–498
6.
HaberM. (1984) A comparison of tests for the hypothesis of no three-factor interaction in 2×2×2 contingency tables. Journal of Statistical Computing and Simulation, 20, 205–215.
7.
MielkeP. W. (1997) Some exact and nonasymptotic analyses of discrete goodness-of-fit and r-way contingency tables. In JohnsonN. L. and BalakrishnanN. (Eds.), Advances in the theory and practice of statistics: a volume in honor of Samual Kotz. New York: Wiley. Pp. 179–192.
8.
MielkeP. W., & BerryK. J. (1988) Cumulant methods for analyzing independence of r-way contingency tables and goodness-of-fit frequency data. Biometrika, 75, 790–793.
9.
MielkeP. W., & BerryK. J. (1996) Exact probabilities for first-order and second-order interactions in 2×2×2 contingency tables. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56, 893–897.
10.
PlackettR. L. (1962) A note on interactions in contingency tables. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 24, 162–166.
11.
PomarM. I. (1984) Demystifying loglinear analysis: four ways to assess interaction. Sociological Perspectives, 27, 111–135.
12.
QueteletM. A. (1849) Letters addressed to H.R.H. the Grand Duke of Saxe Coburg and Gotha on the theory of probabilities as applied to the moral and political sciences. (DownesO. G., Transl.) London: Charles & Edwin Layton.
13.
SimpsonE. H. (1951) The interpretation of interaction in contingency tables. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 13, 238–241.
14.
ZeltermanD.ChanI. S., & MielkeP. W. (1995) Exact tests of significance in higher dimensional tables. The American Statistician, 49, 357–361.
