9.2 Contingency Tables Remark 9.2.1: Last time, we considered multinomial experiments where each trial was inde- pendent. The outcome of each trial was then placed into placed into one of k distinct categories. However, it's a common concern when classifying data based on two criteria, whether those categories are independent of one another. + We ganip ou data by opinims bend tssue, ond by, gerder , we lant te Ramo of He SPinions one independant of gerstar, + we classify Cancer patients by type of mass and Homey ode, we would want to check F cee coke. nd s of ie org Sopa on yeeite © | Row Texats | F 7 a | Hy: cakegories: 1 nu | m2 me Ry one ind. 2 nas | maa a Ra jie: c nea [te re |__Pe [Teatamn Torais | Cr [Ce G. 7» ie pob; pat Pe the Margined prob: R= Pu * Par Nok, Under Ho: oy Pes Par = Pea Pes Pie? Pa Re Pe = Pa Be ind So expected count nM Eo Pn = 9 Pr Pe Bt Has poks ane urtanon. Latis wort with on a egrinater instead | EY =9 ®y\2) 2 RS ie o Fu PesThe estimate of the expected number of observations falling into the cell in row and column is given by where ‘© Ry is the total for row i, ‘© Cis the total for column j, ‘¢ nis the sample size. a Nole = Same beefs pt Ey in theie Comin gency tobas wit ©),1, The n observed counts are a random sample from the population of interest. We can consider this to be a multinomial experiment with rx c possible outcomes. 2, The sample size n will be large enough so that, for every cell, the expected count B(ng needs to be 5 or more. This ensures an accurate x? approximation. Kee: Crik~genuy Thus ore often used Colusad, Th wa hate —~ os ihemy im cobegeng we cant Pind an accurste CV SD cisk of Thee E error, CT cect deat cstatlae thare’s casual relotinsipy be tear our cotegones.hemsanliiey--nensinyiinedias:.senawvnsinancigath/dtndpetinentieniasitiname. katte -aniye.apengtesaiisiriieged emma. 26s, ee received the tworshot sequence, some appeared only for the first shot, and the others received neither. A survey of n = 1000 local residents in the following spring provided the information shown in the table below. ‘Status Shot Type ‘No Vaccine One Shot Two Shot Row Totals Fu uM 9 13 46 (4a) | (Sev | (26.6) Noi 7 To ves oo (2a8,6)| Clo4.cd] Cssi.4) Con Taal a 9 a To00 Is there sufficient evident te a dependence between the two classifications — the ‘vaccine eategory and the occurrence oF nonoceurrence of the Bu? Use a = 005 Note 1 (e-Ce-0 = C2-0G = 2 dF eT 2 2. a20,0S =? Keg fh = S99b 3B. EL RQ = (Heri. 4 se: tooo ~ehu BD me, loco) RCs = CASHSE) = Ssin4 2 OF0 TS xX, fe & Ey ay = Cd ANY (2Bae2ase a Lt (SESS) =a 298.6 seit = 1h 3 r oc 75a = Kiss => We ogect KeExample 9.2.7: The results of a study suggest that the initial electrocardiogram (ECG) of a suspected heart attack victim can be used to predict in-hospital complications of an acute nature. The study included n = 468 patients with suspected myocardial infarction (heart attack). Each itial ECG was positive or negative and patient was categorized according to whether their whether the person suffered life-threatening. complicat results are summarized in the following table. Complications : - Initial ECG No ‘Yes Row Totals Negative 166 O i Positive 260 2 a Column Totals 126 13 7169 Is there sufficient evidence to indicate that whether or not a heart attack patient suffers compli- cations depends on the outcome of the initial ECG? Test using a = 0.05. Nokes 1 Ce eWCene = C202) EL, 2. k20,08 => Bros = eu Taba DWNote Le Cee = C22 UF 2. tz0.08 => Gas = 3-848 Tob IW 3 E> RQ = Cer (420) = 157 7 i Od € 2B = Geox) 227.7 2 tes « & z ra =ee0d a aan ee e, 4 CH42- a7 Sin = Clee - 1st" (260-2743) 4. rar) 1ST 274.3 eZ ST > Bet = UEC) SP ee oer BeExample 9.2.8: A survey of voter sentiment was conducted in four midcity political wards to ‘compare the fraction of voters favoring candidate A. Random samples of 200 voters were polled in each of the four wards, with results as shown in the table below. Ward Opinion 1 2 3 4 Row Totals Favor 76 Ey 30 6 206 je | Ev | (® | GD Don't favor 14 “ua M1 152 564 a4 | aay | aan | ats Column Totals 200 200 200 200 800 Is there sulicient evidence to ind (ye four wards? Use a = 0.05, ite that the fractions of voters favoring candidate A differ in eeeGeert) = GOGH 3 at. Tab WW Neoke | 2. Aco.0S =? 4.615 a 28 is 3 Bo ,.) Eye = Ee) om Soo S..., “ht He = Gees) a1! SS Boo2 oe 9-8) + Bt Ts: 22 Ft aay e = (6-59 + Cg 4 5 (ise ca TH Tél RievTt. F 738lS = hes 0D => se raject He Nok 1 Fee 3 dF. ue 20,028 Plz? M34) =O-04 5 Ono S prvanse Fore P(X 7 9.348) $0.02 Exot -_ prove =PCK ? (0,72) = O,01334.