4.6 Article

Correspondence analysis is a useful tool to uncover the relationships among categorical variables

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 63, 期 6, 页码 638-646

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.08.008

关键词

Correspondence analysis; Multivariate graphical analysis; Categorical data; Relationship; Epidemiology; Information dissemination methods

资金

  1. Solidage Research Group
  2. McGill University
  3. Canadian Initiative on Frailty and Aging
  4. Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) [68739, 82945]
  5. Johns Hopkins Older Americans Independence Center (National Institutes of Health) [P50AG-021334-01]
  6. NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON AGING [P30AG021334] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Correspondence analysis (CA) is a multivariate graphical technique designed to explore the relationships among categorical variables. Epidemiologists frequently collect data on multiple categorical variables with the goal of examining associations among these variables. Nevertheless, CA appears to be an underused technique in epidemiology. The objective of this article is to present the utility of CA in an epidemiological context. Study Design and Setting: The theory and interpretation of CA in the case of two and more than two variables are illustrated through two examples. Results: The outcome from CA is a graphical display of the rows and columns of a contingency table that is designed to permit visualization of the salient relationships among the variable responses in a low-dimensional space. Such a representation reveals a more global picture of the relationships among row-column pairs, which would otherwise not be detected through a pairwise analysis. Conclusion: When the study variables of interest are categorical, CA is an appropriate technique to explore the relationships among variable response categories and can play a complementary role in analyzing epidemiological data. (C) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据