Encyclopedia of Statistics in Behavioral Science 2005
DOI: 10.1002/0470013192.bsa129
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Configural Frequency Analysis

Abstract: Configural Frequency Analysis (CFA) is a method for the analysis of cross‐classifications of categorical variables. Using CFA, one examines individual cells or groups of cells of cross‐classifications with the goal of determining whether they contain more or fewer cases than expected based on some chance model. The specification of the chance model determines the interpretation of results. Depending on chance model, cells with more or fewer cases than expected can be interpreted as indicative of local associat… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
3
1

Relationship

2
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
(11 reference statements)
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…If these measures suggest that the model must be rejected, cell‐wise analysis of model‐data discrepancies will show the researcher where the model fails in particular. In some instances, that is, for specific log‐linear models, large cell‐specific discrepancies come with substantive interpretations, as has been discussed in the context of configural frequency analysis 17,18. Among the most frequently used residual measures are Pearson's and its standardized version, where i goes over the cells of the cross‐classification, and h i is the leverage which is the i th diagonal entry of the hat matrix, For Poisson GLMs, the diagonal entries, w ii , of matrix W ( W is a diagonal matrix) are the model frequencies \documentclass{article}\usepackage{amsmath}\usepackage{amssymb}\usepackage{amsbsy}\usepackage{amsfonts}\pagestyle{empty}\begin{document}$\hat{m}$\end{document} i .…”
Section: Residual Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…If these measures suggest that the model must be rejected, cell‐wise analysis of model‐data discrepancies will show the researcher where the model fails in particular. In some instances, that is, for specific log‐linear models, large cell‐specific discrepancies come with substantive interpretations, as has been discussed in the context of configural frequency analysis 17,18. Among the most frequently used residual measures are Pearson's and its standardized version, where i goes over the cells of the cross‐classification, and h i is the leverage which is the i th diagonal entry of the hat matrix, For Poisson GLMs, the diagonal entries, w ii , of matrix W ( W is a diagonal matrix) are the model frequencies \documentclass{article}\usepackage{amsmath}\usepackage{amssymb}\usepackage{amsbsy}\usepackage{amsfonts}\pagestyle{empty}\begin{document}$\hat{m}$\end{document} i .…”
Section: Residual Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The local tests were post hoc tests and were described under the designation residual test or configuration frequency analysis (Von Eye et al. ; Stemmler ). We performed all analyses with the “cfa” package (Mair and Funke ).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…None of these, however, qualifies as a CFA base model (cf. the criteria for CFA base models listed above; von Eye, 2004). Therefore, we only discuss these three models.…”
Section: Statistically Comparing Lag Patternsmentioning
confidence: 99%