Index to Module 5 Notes
|
In Module Notes 5.2 we
presented material for estimating and testing a population proportion from a
single sample. This set of notes extends the methodology to the case where we
want to estimate and test for the difference between two proportions, then test
for the difference between multiple proportions. We conclude with a test for
the relationship between two categorical variables.
Tests
for the Difference in Two Proportions
Z-Test for the Difference in Two Proportions
Suppose we wanted to determine if a proportion in one population is equal or
not to a proportion in another population. For example, suppose we surveyed
1,000 shoppers at both Sears and JCP and asked them to rate the shopping
experience. Further suppose that in our two samples, 315 Sears shoppers rated
the experience as Excellent (31.5%) and 323 shoppers at JCP rated the
experience as Excellent (32.3%).
To determine if the two population proportions are equal or not, based on
results from the sample, we set up the following hypotheses:
H0:
pSears = pJCP (null hypothesis); note pSears -
pJCP = 0
Ha: pSears =/= pJCP (alternative hypothesis)
The test statistic is the Z-Test statistic, and its computational formula is as follows:
Eq. 5.3.1: Z = (pSears Sample - pJCP Sample) - (pSears - pJCP) /
Sq
Rt [ ppooled * (1 - ppooled) * (1/nSears + 1/nJCP)
]
Where ppooled = (xSears + xJCP) / (nSears
+ nJCP)
For this problem, first find ppooled:
Eq. 5.3.2: ppooled = (315 + 323) / (1,000 + 1,000) = 0.319
Next, compute the Z-Test statistic:
Eq. 5.3.3: Z = (0.315 - 0.323) - (0) / Sq Rt [ 0.319 * (1 - 0.319) * (1 /1,000 + 1/1,000)] = -0.384
The final step is to find the
p-value for a Z-score of -0.384. To do this, we put =NORMSDIST(-0.384) in an
empty cell in an Excel Worksheet, and Excel returns 0.35. Since this is a two
tail test, we multiple 0.35 by 2 and get a p-value of 0.70. Since the p-value
is greater than an alpha threshold of 0.05, we do not reject the null
hypothesis and conclude that the two proportions are equal. Any apparent
difference in the two proportions in our samples is just do to random chance.
Worksheet 5.3.1 provides an Excel template for a general hypothesis test for p1
= p2.
Worksheet 5.3.1
Row
1 |
Column
AF |
AG |
|
2 |
Hypothesis
Test for |
(p1
= p2) |
|
3 |
n1
|
1000 |
(Sears
and Excel) |
4 |
Successes |
315 |
|
5 |
n2
|
1000 |
(JCP
& Excel) |
6 |
Successes |
323 |
|
7 |
Confidence
Level |
0.95 |
|
8 |
Alpha |
0.05 |
|
9 |
Ps1 |
0.315 |
=
AG4 / AG3 |
10 |
Ps2 |
0.323 |
=
AG6 / AG5 |
11 |
Pbar |
0.319 |
=
(AG4 + AG6)/(AG3 + AG5) |
12 |
Null
Hypothesis |
p1
= p2 |
|
13 |
Z
Test Statistic |
-0.383800991 |
=(AG9-AG10)/SQRT(AG11*(1-AG11)*(1/AG3+1/AG5)) |
14 |
p-value
(one-tail) |
0.3506 |
=1-NORMSDIST(ABS(AG13)) |
15 |
p-value
(two-tail) |
0.7011 |
=
2*AG14 |
Chi-Square (X2)
Test for Difference Between Two Proportions
There is another test
for the difference between two proportions - this one is a non parametric test
based on the Chi-Square Distribution. This test is used for data set up in
cross-classification tables.
To use the Chi-Square test for two proportions, we begin with the
cross-classification table. I will use the data from the above example, and put
it into a cross-classification table shown in rows 2 through 5 of Worksheet
5.3.2.
Worksheet 5.3.2
Row 1 |
Column AN |
AO |
AP |
AQ |
AR |
AS |
|
2 |
Excel |
Not Excel |
Total |
||||
3 |
Sears |
315 |
685 |
1000 |
|||
4 |
JCP |
323 |
677 |
1000 |
|||
5 |
Total |
638 |
1362 |
2000 |
|||
6 |
|||||||
7 |
Cell |
Oij |
Eij |
(Oij-Eij) |
(Oij-Eij)^2 |
((Oij-Eij)^2)/Eij |
|
8 |
Sears/Excel |
315 |
319 |
-4 |
16 |
0.0502 |
|
9 |
Sears/Not Excel |
685 |
681 |
4 |
16 |
0.0235 |
|
10 |
JCP/Excel |
323 |
319 |
4 |
16 |
0.0502 |
|
11 |
JCP/Not Excel |
677 |
681 |
-4 |
16 |
0.0235 |
|
12 |
0.1473 |
Total is X^2 Stat. |
|||||
13 |
0.7011 |
=p-value for X^2, using… |
|||||
14 |
=CHIDIST (AS12,1) |
||||||
15 |
The cross-classification table
shows the joint events of Sears and Excellent ratings, and JCP and Excellent
ratings, as well as the complements, Sears and not Excellent, and JCP and not
Excellent. Recall that in the cross classification tables, we have to account
for the entire sample space for the computation of the probabilities.
The hypotheses we are testing are identical to the hypotheses examined at the
beginning of this section:
H0:
pSears = pJCP (null hypothesis);
Ha: pSears =/= pJCP (alternative hypothesis)
The Chi-Square statistic
(note: text references use the symbol X2 where X is the Greek symbol
for Chi) assumes that the samples are randomly selected and independent, and
that there is sufficient sample size. Sufficient sample size is defined as cell
counts in the cross-classification table be at least 5. These requirements are
met for this example.
The formula for computing the Chi-Square Statistic begins with comparing the
observed cell count to the expected. Let's take cell AO3 as an example. The
observed cell count is 315. Next, we find the expected cell count, where the
expected count is what is expected if there were no difference between the
proportions. The expected count is obtained by taking the row total times the
column total (the row and column marginal totals of the particular cell being
studied) divided by the grand total of observations. The expected cell count
for cell AO3 (Sears and Excellent) is:
Eq. 5.3.4: ExpectedSears and Excellent =
Row
TotalSears x Column TotalExcel ) / Total =
( 1,000 x 638 ) / 2,000 = 319.
This computation is shown in
cell AP8 in Worksheet 5.3.2. Next, we find the difference between observed and
expected (shown in cell AQ8), then we square the difference to remove the plus
and minus signs, and convert to a relative frequency by dividing by the
expected count for the cell of interest. Once this is done for each cell in the
cross-classification table, as shown in Worksheet 5.3.2, sum the relative
frequencies to get the Chi-Square statistic of 0.1473 for this example (cell
AS12).
We next find the p-value for the Chi-Square statistic by using the Excel
function =CHIDIST(0.1473,1) in an active worksheet cell. For this function, the
first entry is the value of the Chi-Square statistic, and the second is the
degrees of freedom for the Chi-Square distribution. Degrees of freedom are
(number of rows - 1) times (number of columns - 1). For this example, we have
two rows and two columns (not counting the total rows or columns). Thus, the
degrees of freedom are (2 - 1) times (2 - 1) or 1.
The p-value returned by the Chi-Square function is 0.7011, which is identical
to the two-tail p-value obtained from the Z-Score approach. Since the p-value
is greater than 0.05, we fail to reject the null hypothesis, and conclude the
proportions of interest are equal. Note that if the proportions Store and
Excellent are equal, then the proportions for Store and not Excellent would
also be equal.
If the Chi-Square and Z-Score test approaches are identical, why do we need to
learn the Chi-Square? The main reason is that the Chi-Square approach may be
used for cross-classification tables larger than 2 rows by 2 columns - multiple
sample problems. The Z-Score approach is limited to comparing two proportions.
We do the multiple sample problem next.
For the Chi-Square test to give accurate results for the 2 by 2 table, it is assumed
that each expected frequency in the cross-classification table cells is at
least five. References are provided (Levine, 1999) for small sample size
problems beyond the scope of this course.
Test
for the Difference in Multiple Proportions
Now suppose we were
interested in comparing the proportion of shoppers who rated Kmart as
Excellent, with those who rated Sears as Excellent, with those who rated JCP as
Excellent, to those who rated Wards as Excellent with respect to their shopping
experience. The hypothesis statements are:
H0:
pKmart & Excel = pSears & Excel = pJCP &
Excel = pWards & Excel
Ha: Not all proportions are equal
We gather our sample and
prepare the cross-classification table as shown in rows 3 through 7 of
Worksheet 5.3.3.
Worksheet 5.3.3
Row 1 |
AY |
AZ |
BA |
BB |
BC |
BD |
|
2 |
Excel |
Good |
Poor |
Total |
|||
3 |
Kmart |
272 |
477 |
251 |
1000 |
||
4 |
Sears |
315 |
457 |
228 |
1000 |
||
5 |
JCP |
323 |
470 |
207 |
1000 |
||
6 |
Wards |
391 |
404 |
205 |
1000 |
||
7 |
Total |
1301 |
1808 |
891 |
4000 |
||
8 |
|||||||
9 |
Cell |
Oij |
Eij |
(Oij-Eij) |
(Oij-Eij)^2 |
((Oij-Eij)^2)/Eij |
|
10 |
Kmart/E |
272 |
325.25 |
-53.25 |
2835.5625 |
8.7181 |
|
11 |
Kmart/G |
477 |
452 |
25 |
625 |
1.3827 |
|
12 |
Kmart/P |
251 |
222.75 |
28.25 |
798.0625 |
3.5828 |
|
13 |
Sears/E |
315 |
325.25 |
-10.25 |
105.0625 |
0.3230 |
|
14 |
Sears/G |
457 |
452 |
5 |
25 |
0.0553 |
|
15 |
Sears/P |
228 |
222.75 |
5.25 |
27.5625 |
0.1237 |
|
16 |
JCP/E |
323 |
325.25 |
-2.25 |
5.0625 |
0.0156 |
|
17 |
JCP/G |
470 |
452 |
18 |
324 |
0.7168 |
|
18 |
JCP/P |
207 |
222.75 |
-15.75 |
248.0625 |
1.1136 |
|
19 |
Wards/E |
391 |
325.25 |
65.75 |
4323.0625 |
13.2915 |
|
20 |
Wards/G |
404 |
452 |
-48 |
2304 |
5.0973 |
|
21 |
Wards/P |
205 |
222.75 |
-17.75 |
315.0625 |
1.4144 |
|
35.8350 |
Total is X^2 Stat. |
||||||
6 |
= df = (row-1)(col-1) |
||||||
0.000 |
= p-value for X^2, using… |
||||||
= CHIDIST(BD22,6) |
|||||||
Next, the Chi-Square
statistic is again computed by working with computations involving the differences
between the observed and expected frequencies in each cell. The resulting
Chi-Square value of 35.8350 and 6 degrees of freedom has a p-value of 0.000.
Since the p-value is less than a threshold alpha value of 0.05, we reject the
null hypothesis and conclude that at least two of the proportions are not
equal.
If you wanted to continue testing to determine which two proportions are not
equal, you could do that with the Chi-Square test for Difference between two
proportions. Caution: if you plan to conduct multiple tests with the data, you
should adjust alpha down as done with multiple regression and ANOVA.
This information might be important if, for example, we were the marketing
department at Wards and wanted to back up an advertising claim that shoppers
rate their experience at Wards as more excellent than at the other three stores
(note that Wards has the highest proportion of shoppers rating their experience
as excellent).
The assumption for
application of the Chi-Square test to cross-classification tables larger than 2
by 2 is that the expected cell frequencies are at least equal to five, although
some sources suggest the expected cell frequencies can be as low as 1 as long
as the total sample size is large (number of cells times 5) (Sheskin, 2000). If
the expected cell frequencies are less than five (or one with very large total
samples), then one or more rows or one or more columns may have to be
collapsed.
Test for Independence
The final test we can perform with categorical data in cross-classification
tables is the Chi-Square test for independence. The hypotheses for this test
are:
H0: The two categorical variables are independent (there is no
relationship between the two variables)
Ha: The two categorical variables are dependent (there is a
relationship between the two variables)
Suppose we are interested in
determining if the amount of money one spends on a shopping experience is
related to the store where one shops. The following cross-classification table
illustrates data collected (rows 3 through 7) for a scenario such as this:
Worksheet 5.3.4
1 |
BH |
BI |
BJ |
BK |
BL |
BM |
BN |
2 |
|
>$100 |
$50-100 |
<$50 |
Total |
|
|
3 |
Kmart |
50 |
325 |
478 |
853 |
|
|
4 |
Sears |
457 |
315 |
50 |
822 |
|
|
5 |
JCP |
250 |
250 |
250 |
750 |
|
|
6 |
Wards |
275 |
200 |
100 |
575 |
|
|
7 |
Total |
1032 |
1090 |
878 |
4000 |
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9 |
Cell |
Oij |
Eij |
(Oij-Eij) |
(Oij-Eij)^2 |
((Oij-Eij)^2)/Eij |
|
10 |
Kmart/>$100 |
50 |
220.07 |
-170.07 |
28925.17 |
131.43 |
|
11 |
Kmart/$50-100 |
325 |
232.44 |
92.56 |
8566.89 |
36.86 |
|
12 |
Kmart/<$50 |
478 |
187.23 |
290.77 |
84545.16 |
451.55 |
|
13 |
Sears/>$100 |
457 |
212.08 |
244.92 |
59987.77 |
282.86 |
|
14 |
Sears/$50-100 |
315 |
224.00 |
91.01 |
8281.91 |
36.97 |
|
15 |
Sears/<$50 |
50 |
180.43 |
-130.43 |
17011.72 |
94.28 |
|
16 |
JCP/>$100 |
250 |
193.50 |
56.50 |
3192.25 |
16.50 |
|
17 |
JCP/$50-100 |
250 |
204.38 |
45.63 |
2081.64 |
10.19 |
|
18 |
JCP/<$50 |
250 |
164.63 |
85.38 |
7288.89 |
44.28 |
|
19 |
Wards/>$100 |
275 |
148.35 |
126.65 |
16040.22 |
108.12 |
|
20 |
Wards/$50-100 |
200 |
156.69 |
43.31 |
1875.97 |
11.97 |
|
21 |
Wards/<$50 |
100 |
126.21 |
-26.21 |
687.10 |
5.44 |
|
22 |
|
|
|
|
|
1230.46 |
Total is
X^2 Stat. |
23 |
|
|
|
|
|
6 |
= df =
(row-1)(col-1) |
24 |
Since
p-value is < 0.01, reject Ho; the two variables are related. The strength
of relationship is: |
|
|
|
|
0.000 |
= p-value
for X^2 |
25 |
|
|
|
|
|
= CHIDIST(
BM22,6) |
|
26 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
27 |
Cramer's
Phi = SQRT(BM22/(3000*(3-1))) = |
|
|
|
0.453 |
|
|
The test statistic is the
Chi-Square, and its computation is identical to the Chi-Square test for differences
in multiple samples. Here, the Chi-Square computed of 1230.46 with 6 degrees of
freedom has a p-value of 0.000. Since the p-value is less than a threshold
value of alpha of 0.05, we reject the null hypothesis and conclude that dollars
spent during the shopping event is related to the store at which one shops
(Sears and Wards attracting shoppers who spend more than $100, whereas Kmart
attracting shoppers who spend less than $50). This information might be of use
to someone planning a target market ad campaign.
The last item concerning the relationship between two categorical variables is strength.
There is a coefficient called Cramer's Phi Coefficient which is similar to the
correlation coefficient. It is shown in Row 27 of Worksheet 5.3.4. The formula
is:
Eq. 5.3.5: Cramer's Phi = Square Root {Chi-Square / [ ( n * (k-1) ] }
where k - 1 is the smaller of (rows - 1) or (columns - 1).
For this problem, the Chi-Square value is 1230.46, the sample size is 3,000, and since the number of columns is less than the number of rows, we use columns - 1. The resulting computations are:
Eq. 5.3.6: Cramer's' Phi = Square Root {1230.46 / [ 3000 * (3-1) ] } = 0.453
While there
is a significant statistical relationship, we would have to say it is
relatively weak at 0.453 (interpreted just as a correlation coefficient in
regression analysis).
That's it!!! We are finished with the notes for QMB 6305. You may want to
review the notes in Module 5 by working through the "Airline Satisfaction
Survey" assignment in the Main Module 5 Overview. After this set of notes,
you can answer questions 3 and 4.
References:
Anderson, D.,
Sweeney, D., & Williams, T. (2010). Essential of Modern Business Statistics
with Microsoft Excel. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western, Chapter 11.
Ken
Black. Business Statistics for Contemporary Decision Making. Fourth Edition,
Wiley. Chapter 4 & 12
Levine, D., Berenson, M.
& Stephan, D. (1999). Statistics for Managers Using Microsoft Excel (2nd.
ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Chapter 11.
Mason, R., Lind, D. & Marchal, W. (1999). Statistical Techniques in
Business and Economics (10th. ed.). Boston: Irwin McGraw Hill, Chapter
14.
Sheskin, D. (2000). Handbook of Parametric and Nonparametric Statistical Procedures (2nd ed.). Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC, Test 16 -- The Chi-Square Test for r x c Tables