Re: Standardized vs. Adjusted Standardized Residuals for Statistically Significant Chi-Square

Posted by Mark Miller on
URL: http://spssx-discussion.165.s1.nabble.com/95-significance-test-tp5717562p5717602.html

Todd,

Adjusted Standardized Residuals (as defined by Haberman)  are most like

standardized residuals from regression as they have a Normal(0,1) distribution.

I would use them wherever available.

If you are using these as surrogates to rank contributions of cells to  Chi-Squared,

either form does a decent job but the Adjusted Standardized Residuals 

are preferable as they correct for unequal table marginals.

... Mark Miller

On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 1:06 PM, Todd Alan Zoblotsky (tzbltsky) <[hidden email]> wrote:

When trying to determine which groups are contributing to a significant overall chi-square test (for contingency tables that are larger than 2x2), I have read about using the Standardized residuals (i.e., Standardized residual values > 2).  However, SPSS also has the option to give Adjusted Standardized residuals.  I have tried reading up on the Adjusted Standardized residuals, but am not clear on when (of if) it is more appropriate to use the Standardized or Adjusted Standardized residuals to determine differences between groups.  Any clarification or guidance the group can provide would be greatly appreciated.

Thank You,

Todd Zoblotsky

=====================
To manage your subscription to SPSSX-L, send a message to
[hidden email] (not to SPSSX-L), with no body text except the
command. To leave the list, send the command
SIGNOFF SPSSX-L
For a list of commands to manage subscriptions, send the command
INFO REFCARD