{"title":"Power comparisons for testing goodness of fit for constrained models on high-dimensional cross-classified tables.","authors":"Mark Reiser, Lulu Wang, Hazar A Khogeer","doi":"10.1080/02664763.2025.2606978","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In applications of models for cross-classified categorical variables, goodness of fit (GOF) is commonly assessed by either Pearson's <math><msup><mi>X</mi> <mn>2</mn></msup> </math> statistic or the likelihood ratio statistic with reference to an asymptotic chi-square approximation. However, if the number of cross-classified variables is large, difficulties are encountered in obtaining a valid test using the traditional statistics due to <i>sparseness</i> and <i>dilution</i> of power. Because of these difficulties, several asymptotic chi-square GOF statistics that <i>focus</i> on lower-order marginal distributions have been proposed. Another method that generally does not encounter the difficulties caused by sparseness and dilution is the likelihood ratio difference test of a nested model. In this paper, Monte Carlo simulations are used to compare the power of a test of fit on lower-order marginals to the power of a test using the likelihood ratio difference statistic for detecting lack of fit in a constrained latent variable model. Results show that the likelihood ratio difference test has substantially higher power. We recommend using a statistic based on lower-order marginals to test the unconstrained model before applying the likelihood ratio difference test. Then, if the general model has an adequate fit, we recommend testing the constrained model using a likelihood ratio difference statistic.</p>","PeriodicalId":15239,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Statistics","volume":"53 13","pages":"2669-2686"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-12-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13637780/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Applied Statistics","FirstCategoryId":"100","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02664763.2025.2606978","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"数学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"STATISTICS & PROBABILITY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
In applications of models for cross-classified categorical variables, goodness of fit (GOF) is commonly assessed by either Pearson's statistic or the likelihood ratio statistic with reference to an asymptotic chi-square approximation. However, if the number of cross-classified variables is large, difficulties are encountered in obtaining a valid test using the traditional statistics due to sparseness and dilution of power. Because of these difficulties, several asymptotic chi-square GOF statistics that focus on lower-order marginal distributions have been proposed. Another method that generally does not encounter the difficulties caused by sparseness and dilution is the likelihood ratio difference test of a nested model. In this paper, Monte Carlo simulations are used to compare the power of a test of fit on lower-order marginals to the power of a test using the likelihood ratio difference statistic for detecting lack of fit in a constrained latent variable model. Results show that the likelihood ratio difference test has substantially higher power. We recommend using a statistic based on lower-order marginals to test the unconstrained model before applying the likelihood ratio difference test. Then, if the general model has an adequate fit, we recommend testing the constrained model using a likelihood ratio difference statistic.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Applied Statistics provides a forum for communication between both applied statisticians and users of applied statistical techniques across a wide range of disciplines. These areas include business, computing, economics, ecology, education, management, medicine, operational research and sociology, but papers from other areas are also considered. The editorial policy is to publish rigorous but clear and accessible papers on applied techniques. Purely theoretical papers are avoided but those on theoretical developments which clearly demonstrate significant applied potential are welcomed. Each paper is submitted to at least two independent referees.