The method described in Goodness of Fit can also be used to determine whether two sets of data are independent of each other. Such data are organized in what are called **contingency tables**, as described in Example 1. In these cases *df* = (row count – 1) (column count – 1).

**Excel Function**: The CHITEST function described in Goodness of Fit can be extended to support ranges consisting of multiple rows and columns. In this case, we have:

**CHITEST**(R1, R2) = CHIDIST(*x, df*) where *x* is the chi-square statistic, R1 = the array of observed data, R2 = the array of expected values and *df* = (row count – 1) (column count – 1).

The ranges R1 and R2 must have the same size and shape and can only contain numeric values.

**Example 1**: A survey is conducted of 175 young adults whose parents are classified either as wealthy, middle class or poor to determine their highest level of schooling (graduated from university, graduated from high school or neither). The results are summarized on the left side of Figure 1 (Observed Values). Based on the data collected is the person’s level of schooling independent of their parents’ wealth?

We set the null hypothesis to be

H_{0}: Highest level of schooling attained is independent of parents’ wealth

We use the chi-square test, and so need to calculate the expected values that correspond to the observed values in the table above. To accomplish this we use the fact (by Definition 3 of Basic Probability Concepts) that if *A* and *B* are independent events then *P*(*A *∩ *B*) = *P*(*A*) ∙ *P*(*B*). We also assume that the proportions for the sample are good estimates for the probabilities of the expected values.

We now show how to construct the table of expected values (i.e. the Expected Values in Figure 1). We know that 45 of the 175 people in the sample are from wealthy families, and so the probability that someone in the sample is from a wealthy family is 45/175 = 25.7%. Similarly the probability that someone in the sample graduated from university is 68/175 = 38.9%. But based on the null hypothesis, the event of being from a wealthy family is independent of graduating from university, and so the expected probability of both events is simply the product of the two events, or 25.7% ∙ 38.9% = 10.0%. Thus, based on the null hypothesis, we expect that 10.0% of 175 = 17.5 people are from a wealthy family and have graduated from university.

In this way we can fill out the table for expected values. We start by setting all the totals in the Expected Values table to be the same as the corresponding total in the Observed Values table (e.g. cell K6 contains the formula =E6). We then set the value of every cell in the Expected Values table to be

(row total ∙ col total) / grand total

E.g. cell H6 contains the formula =K6*H9/K9. An alternative approach for filling in all the cells in the Expected Values table is to place the following array formula in range H6:J8 (and then press **Ctrl-Shft-Enter**):

=MMULT(K6:K8,H9:J9)/K9

See Matrix Operations for more information about the MMULT array function. We can now calculate the p-value for the chi-square test statistic as CHITEST(*Obs*, *Exp*, *df*) where *Obs *is the 3 × 3 array of observed values, *Exp* = the 3 × 3 array of expected values and *df* = (row count – 1) (column count – 1) = 2 ∙ 2 = 4. Since

CHITEST(B6:D8,H6:J8) = 0.003273 < .05 = *α*

we reject the null hypothesis and conclude that the level of schooling attained is not independent of parents’ wealth.

**Example 2**: A researcher wants to know whether there is a significant difference in two therapies for curing patients of cocaine dependence (defined as not taking cocaine for at least 6 months). She tests 150 patients and obtains the results in the upper left part of the table below (labeled Observed Values).

We establish the following null hypothesis:

H_{0}: There is no difference between the two therapies’ ability to cure cocaine dependence

We next calculate the Expected Values from the Observed Values and then the p-value of the chi-square statistic as we did in Example 1. This time, however, we will use the approach employed in Example 2 of Goodness of Fit, namely calculating the Pearson’s chi-square test statistic directly (using Definition 2 of Goodness of Fit). The value of this statistic is 5.516 (cell D17 in Figure 2). Since we are dealing with a 2 × 2 table of observations, *df* = (2 – 1)(2 – 1) = 1. Finally we observe that

p-value = CHIDIST(χ^{2}, *df*) = CHIDIST(5.516,1) = .0188 < .05 = *α*

χ^{2}-crit = CHIINV(*α, df*) = CHIINV(.05,1) = 3.841 < 5.516 = χ^{2}-obs

and so we reject the null hypothesis and conclude there is a significant difference in the cure rate between the two therapies.

As was mentioned in Goodness of Fit, the maximum likelihood test is a more precise version of the chi-square test employed thus far. The lower right-hand side of the worksheet in Figure 2 shows how to calculate the maximum likelihood statistic (using Definition 1 of Goodness of Fit). The value of this statistic is 5.725, which is not much different from the test statistic we obtained using the Pearson’s test. Since this statistic is also approximately chi-square with one degree of freedom, the analysis is quite similar:

p-value = CHIDIST(χ^{2}, *df*) = CHIDIST(5.725,1) = .015 < .05 = *α*

χ^{2}-crit = CHIINV(*α, df*) = CHIINV(.05,1) = 3.841 < 5.725 = χ^{2}-obs

and so once again, we reject the null hypothesis and conclude there is significant difference in the results for the two therapies.

**Observation**: It is very important to include all observations in the test. E.g. if in Example 2 we only test Cured vs. Therapy 1 and 2, we will get erroneous results. We need to include Not Cured as well as Cured.

**Real Statistics Excel Functions**: The following supplemental functions are provided in the Real Statistics Resource Pack:

**CHI_STAT2**(R1, R2) = Pearson’s chi-square statistic for observation values in range R1 and expectation values in range R2

**CHI_MAX2**(R1, R2) = Maximum likelihood chi-square statistic for observation values in range R1 and expectation values in range R2

**CHI_STAT**(R1) = Pearson’s chi-square statistic for observation values in range R1. This is CHI_STAT2(R1, R2) where R2 is the expectation values calculated from R1.

**CHI_MAX**(R1) = Maximum likelihood chi-square statistic for observation values in range R1. This is CHI_MAX2(R1, R2) where R2 is the expectation values calculated from R1.

**CHI_TEST**(R1) = p-value for Pearson’s chi-square statistic for observation values in range R1. This is CHITEST(R1, R2) where R2 is the expectation values calculated from R1.

**CHI_MAX_TEST**(R1) = p-value for Maximum likelihood chi-square statistic for observation values in range R1

The ranges R1 and R2 must contain only numeric values.

**Real Statistics Data Analysis Tool**: In addition, the Real Statistics Resource Pack provides a supplemental **Chi-Square Test **data analysis tool. To use this tool for Example 1 enter **Ctrl-m** and select the **Chi-square Test** option. A dialog box as in Figure 3 appears.

**Figure 3 – Dialog box for Chi-square Test**

Insert the observation data into the **Input Range** (excluding the totals, but optionally including the row and column headings; i.e. range A5:D8), click on the **Excel format** radio button and press the **OK** button.

The data analysis tool builds an array with the expected values and performs both the Pearson’s and maximum likelihood chi-square tests. The Cramer effect size, and for 2 × 2 contingency tables the Odds Ratio effect size, as described in Effect Size for Chi-square are also calculated. The output from the data analysis tool for the data in Example 1 in shown in Figure 4.

**Observation**: As described in Goodness of Fit, the expected frequency for any cell in the contingency table should generally be at least 5. With small tables (especially 2 × 2 tables), cells with expected frequencies of at least 10 would be preferable.

For large contingency tables, a small percentage of cells with expected frequency of less than 5 can be acceptable. Even for smaller contingency tables having one cell with expected frequency of less than 5 may not cause big problems, but it is probably a better choice to use Fisher’s Exact Test in this case. In any event, you should avoid using the chi-square test where there is an expected frequency of less than 1 in any cell.

If the expected frequency for one or more cell is less than 5, it may be beneficial to combine one or more cells so that this condition can be met, although this must be done in such a way as to not bias the results.

**Observation**: In addition to the usual Excel input data format, the Real Statistics **Chi Square Test** data analysis tool supports another input data format called **standard format**. This format is similar to that used by SPSS and other statistical analysis programs.

**Example 3**: A survey is conducted of 38 young adults whose parents are classified either as wealthy, middle class or poor to determine whether they will graduate from university or not The results are summarized in the table on the left side of Figure 5 (only the first 13 of 38 rows of data are shown). Based on the data collected is a person’s level of schooling independent of their parents’ wealth?

**Figure 5 – Data and chi-square tests for Example 3**

Once again enter **Ctrl-m** and select the **Chi-square** data analysis tool. When the dialog box shown in Figure 3 appears, insert A3:B41 into the **Input Range**, click on the **Standard format** radio button and press the **OK** button.

The data analysis tool first builds a contingency table (range D5:F8 of Figure 5) and performs the same type of analysis as for Example 1 and 2. Since *sig* = no (cell R11 or R12) we cannot reject the null hypothesis that a student’s graduating from university is independent of his/her parents’ level of income.

How to I call the Chi Square data analysis tool? I’ve installed the tools from this website, but nothing additional shows up in the ‘data analysis’ menu. The additional chi square functions from your resource pack show up in the function list, but nothing additional in the data analysis menu.

Thanks.

Hi Machelle,

To access the Real Statistics data analysis tools just press Ctrl-m. A dialog box will appear listing the available tools. The supplemental tools are not available through the data analysis menu. You can also add a menu to the Data ribbon right next to the data analysis menu which will give you access to the supplemental data analysis tools. Instructions for how to do this are available on the webpage http://www.real-statistics.com/excel-capabilities/supplemental-data-analysis-tools/accessing-supplemental-data-analysis-tools/.

Charles

I’m a little confused about when to use which of the formulas. What is the difference between CHITEST, CHIDIST and CHIINV? And which one would I use to find the p-value?

Thanks.

John,

CHITEST and CHIDIST can be used to calculate the p-value. CHIDIST is used to calculate the p-value when you know the value of the statistic and the df. When you have a set of data and can calculate the expected values from that data then CHITEST can be used (see the website for a description of how to calculate the expected values or use one of the supplemental functions provided by the Real Statistics Resource Pack to do this).

CHITEST(R1, R2) = CHIDIST(χ^2, df) where R1 = the array of observed data, R2 = the array of expected value, χ^2 is calculated from R1 and R2 and df = the number of elements in R1 (or R2) minus 1.

CHIINV is the inverse function. It tells you what value of the statistic will produce a p-value of a certain size.

I suggest that you read the first four topics on http://www.real-statistics.com/chi-square-and-f-distributions/ for a more complete explanation.

Charles

How can I test those in the following by chi-square test

Say: people have two staged choice. In the first stage, he either choose A or B. After his choice in stage 1 , he face another choice C or D. His two-staged choice could lead to two kind of results, either true or false. I want test with the combination of A+ C would lead to true results, significantly.

I’ve done a 2*4 chi-square test by listed all the combination : A+C, A+D, B+C, B+D. But it could only explain different combination have different influence toward the results. How could I know if A+C have significant influence?

Thanks

Kate,

I don’t quite understand what you are trying to accomplish. From what I understand it doesn’t seem like you are testing for independence, which is what the chi-square test for independence is designed to accomplish. How what you are testing fit with a test for independence?

Charles

Hello Charles!

I am looking for one statistic test for my data to find the significance or independence of variables or association between them. I made the table of cross tabulation of variables for frequency. Definitely, they are categorical variable. However, there are the values of actual (observed) counts which are equal to 0; so some values of expected counts are less than 1. How should I do in this case?

Unfortunately Trang I don’t fully understand the situation you are describing (especially the part about the observed counts being equal to 0). Can you provide a more complete description?

Charles

All much too complex for my needs, which are very simple: do 40 male and 60 female fruit flies fit a 1:1 expectation at P<0.05? How do I do it in Excel? My contingency table has four columns (o, Ho, e and Chi-square) and three rows (male, female) and sum. How do I do it in Excel?

Dick,

You seem to be conducting a goodness of fit test (which is related to an independence test, but slightly different). The approach is similar to that shown in Example 3 of http://www.real-statistics.com/chi-square-and-f-distributions/goodness-of-fit/.

You create the following table in Excel (which is similar to the table you described):

row 1: Gender, Obs, Exp, Chi-sq (in columns A, B, C, D)

row 2: Male, 40, 50, blank

row 3: Female, 60, 50, blank

row 4: Sum, =SUM(B2:B3), =SUM(C2:C3),=CHITEST(B2:B3,C2:C3)

Charles

Charles: Except that the answer you get is incorrect: 0.046. Should be 10 squared, divided by 50, then multiplied by 2 = 4.0. What has gone wrong?