Talk:Cross tabulation

The "Wiki users are smarter" bit is cute, but hardly NPOV, is it? Joshua McGee (talk) 06:20, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It is just my feeble attempt at introducing some humor into an otherwize dry subject. If it offends you, change it. mydogategodshat 17:41, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to be a jerk about it. Personally, I like it. But it's hard to imagine the Encyclopedia Brittanica doing something like this, right? :-) I did forget to thank you for a very clear example; I like the article. Joshua McGee (talk) 23:58, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Something seems wrong with the explanation in the second half of the second paragraph. The reason the rows don't add to 100% is because the table is of the use of wiki for various underwear-types of people, not underwear type for various groups of people based on wikipedia usage. I can't explain it well or I would rewrite it, but I'm hoping someone else who reads this can. Furthermore, the last sentence is blantantly wrong because it implies that the whole table should sum to 100%. It should probably read something like: each cell gives the percentage of people who fall into the column grouping who also fall into the row grouping, but that's a bit long. Scott 04:56, 13 Jan 2007 (UTC)

Wiki users wear boxers or briefs

The article says that these categories are all-inclusive. In order for that to be the case, we would have to assume that all Wiki users are male, or that female Wiki users wear men's underpants.

^^agreed! What would be a good way to fix this problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.140.210.168 (talk) 16:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

shouldn't there also be a mention that even if we were discussing only male wiki users, the attributes still aren't exhaustive (boxer-briefs, male thongs, etc.)? I'm sure the general user would believe that this is nonexhaustive because females aren't included (save for those that don't identify as either male or female...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.140.210.168 (talk) 19:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Need a section on statistical software

Crosstabs are computed with software on a computer. Large, comprehensive statistical software languages have one or two routines for computing crosstabs.

Language, Crosstab procedure
Minitab, Cross Tabulation
SAS, Proc Freq, Proc Tabulate
SPSS, CROSSTABS
S (open source version "R"), freq()
Systat, ?
Stata, ?
MS Access, Crosstab query
MS Excel, Pivot tables
Lotus Approach, ?
EPI Info, FREQ
Geoda, ?
Jim.Callahan,Orlando 01:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regression based statistical analysis of contingency tables (General Linear Model or GLM)

The current statistical discussion of analysis of contingency tables speaks with an ANOVA accent. A simpler, but more powerful way of looking at the contingency tables is using a regression with a collection of zero-one (dummy) indicator variables to code levels.

Y = b0 + b1*X1 + b2*X2 (NOTE: 0,1 & 2 SHOULD BE SUBSCRIPTS

Y = variable to be explained or predicted in terms of the other variables = f(X1, X2...)

b0 = Y-Intercept (beta-zero) b1 = estimated regression coefficient for first variable (beta-one)
X1 = first variable (x-one)
b2 = estimated regression coefficient for second variable (beta-two)
X2 = second variable (x-two)

a complete regression model would include an interaction term (X1*X2) and squared terms (X1*X1) and (X2*X2).

X1*X2 = interaction term (the coefficient of this term measures interaction (twisted response surface) between X1 and X2)
X1*X1 = squared term (for X1) measures curvature (fits a parabola) indicating a non-linear effect
X2*X2 = squared term (for X2) measures curvature (fits a parabola) indicating a non-linear effect

Again we need a software table.

SAS, PROC GLM
S (open source version "R"), lm()

Jim.Callahan,Orlando 01:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

I think that cross tabulation and contingency table could easily and usefully combined into a single, comprehensive article—G716 <^T·_C> 05:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. These are synonyms and I can see no reason not to merge. Qwfp (talk) 05:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doubt. May not be always equivalent? Eg article Gamma test (statistics) suggests that in some instances there may be special statistics for cross tabulations where the variables are both ordinal ... not sure if "contingency table" ever covers this case. However the present article on cross tabulation doesn't, and just seems to have identical coverage to that for contingency tables. Unfortunately the article Gamma test (statistics) is short on information. Melcombe (talk) 16:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doubt. A cross tabulation is a process. A contingency table is the result. Therefore they are not synonyms. Nevertheless, their relationship should be clearly established. In my experience, merging terms and entries leads to confusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GPacificar (talk • contribs) 21:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having two sections with proper link is better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.40.62.17 (talk) 11:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Object. Although structurally they look the same, from practical point of view they are not always synonyms. The statistical concept of contingency table has a complete different usage than cross tabulation. I support two articles with proper links. FakhredinBlog (talk) 14:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There may actually be a "complete different usage" for the two things, but this is hardly made clear in either of the articles. Can someone add something to make the distinction clear? If a merger is not to go ahead, should the (majority of) statistical stuff be moved out? Melcombe (talk) 09:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carefully implemented the merge. If in doubt, simply undo the last couple of changes. Grumpfel (talk) 22:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]