Quality and Quantity

, Volume 25, Issue 4, pp 345–358 | Cite as

Prescribed conditional interaction structure models with application to the analysis of mobility tables

  • Tamás Rudas


The present paper considers some new models for the analysis of multidimensional contigency tables. Although the theoretical background used here appeared already in Haberman (1974), prescribed conditional interaction (PCIN) models were introduced by Rudas (1987) and their mathematical properties were worked out by Leimer and Rudas (1988). These models are defined by prescribing the values of certain conditional interactions in the contingency table. Conditional interaction is defined here as the logarithm of an appropriately defined conditional odds ratio. This conditional odds ratio is a conditional version of a generalization of the well known odds ratio of a 2×2 table and that of the three factor interaction term of a 2×2×2 table and applies to any number of dimensions and any number of categories of the variables. The well known log-linear (LL) models are special PCIN models. Estimated frequencies under PCIN models and tests of fit can be computed using existing statistical software (e.g. BMDP). The paper describes the class of PCIN models and compares it to the class of association models of Goodman (1981). As LL models are widely used in the analysis of social mobility tables, application of more general PCIN models is illustrated.


Contingency Table Exponential Family Canonical Parameter Conditional Version Mobility Table 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Barndorff-Nielsen, O. (1978).Information and Exponential Families. Wiley.Google Scholar
  2. BishopY. M. M., FienbergS. E., and HollandP. W. (1975).Discrete Multivariate Analysis: Theory and Practice. M.I.T. Press, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  3. DixonW. J. (1981).BMDP Statistical Software. UCLA Press, Berkeley, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  4. GoodmanL. A. (1972). A modified multiple regression approach to the analysis of dichotomous variables,Amer. Sociol. Rev. 37, 28–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. GoodmanL. A. (1981). Association models and canonical correlation in the analysis of cross-classifications having ordered categories,J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 76, 320–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Haberman, S. J. (1974).The Analysis of Frequency Data. Univ. of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  7. LeimerH.-G. and RudasT. (1988). Contigency tables with prescribed conditional odds ratios or prescribed log-linear parameters,Berichte zur Stochasitk und Verwandten Gebieten, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität, Mainz.Google Scholar
  8. Leimer, H.-G. and Rudas, T. (1989). Conversion betwen GLIM-and BMDP-type log-linear parameters,GLIM Newsletter No 19, 47.Google Scholar
  9. Peschar, J. L., Popping, R., and Robert, P. (1986). Social mobility in Hungary and the Netherlands: consistencies and inconsistencies. Paper presented at the Meeting of the Research Committee on Social Stratification and Mobility of the ISA, Rome.Google Scholar
  10. RudasT. (1987). Prescribed conditional interaction models for binary contingency tables, in Yu. V.Prohorov and V. V.Sazonov (eds.),Proceedings of the 1st World Congress of the Bernoulli Society. Vol. 2, 339–342, VNU Science Press, Utrecht.Google Scholar
  11. Stouffer, S. A., Suchman, E. A., Devinney, L. C., Star, S. A., Williams, R. M. (1949).The American Soldier. Vol. 1. Princeton Univ. Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tamás Rudas
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of SociologyEötvös UniversityBudapestHungary

Personalised recommendations