Hostname: page-component-f554764f5-nqxm9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-11T04:51:25.332Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Interactions in contingency tables: a brief discussion of alternative definitions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 July 2009

B. S. Everitt  and
A. M. R. Smith
B. S. Everitt*
Affiliation:
Biometrics Unit, Institute of Psychiatry, London
A. M. R. Smith
Affiliation:
Biometrics Unit, Institute of Psychiatry, London
*
1Address for correspondence: Dr B. S. Everitt, Biometrics Unit, Institute of Psychiatry, De Crespigny Park, Denmark Hill, London SE5 8AF.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Synopsis

The purpose of this note is to indicate how the disagreement between Tennant & Bebbington and Brown & Harris has arisen. The difference between the 2 pairs of authors is due, at least in part, to their use of different models for the analysis of the data in question. There can be no final answer as to which model is correct – the data are simply open to more than one interpretation. Nevertheless, it is interesting that the use of a multiplicative model, seemingly ignored by Brown & Harris, leads to a simple description of the data in which the ‘vulnerability factor’ and the ‘provoking agent’ may be considered to act independently on the response. Consequently, in stating that their data contain an interaction so obvious that it can be detected by ‘visual inspection’, Brown & Harris may have been somewhat rash.

Type
Brief Communication
Information
Psychological Medicine , Volume 9 , Issue 3 , August 1979 , pp. 581 - 583
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1979

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Brown, G. W. & Harris, T. (1978). Social origins of depression: a reply. Psychological Medicine 8, 577–588.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cox, D. R. (1970). Analysis of Binary Data. Chapman and Hall: London.Google Scholar
Darroch, J. N. (1974). Multiplicative and additive interaction in contingency tables. Biometrika 61, 207–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Everitt, B. S. (1977). The Analysis of Contingency Tables. Chapman and Hall: London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galtung, J. (1967). Theory and Methods of Social Research. Allen and Unwin: London.Google Scholar
Grizzle, J. E., Starmer, C. F. & Koch, G. G. (1969). Analysis of categorical data by linear models. Biometrics 25,489–504.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Plackett, R. L. (1974). The Analysis of Categorical Data. Griffin: London.Google Scholar
Tennant, C. & Bebbington, P. (1978). The social causation of depression: a critique of the work of Brown and his colleagues. Psychological Medicine 8, 565–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar