power.chisq.test.simulate {LabApplStat} | R Documentation |
Simulate power of Chi-squared tests with conditioning
Description
power.chisq.test.simulate
simulates power for tests for 2-way contingency tables based on the Pearson Chi-squared test statistics by simulation under 4 different conditioning scenarios.
Usage
power.chisq.test.simulate(
x,
conditioning = "total",
x0 = NULL,
sig.level = 0.05,
B = 10000
)
Arguments
x |
matrix specifying the alternative distribution of the contingency table. |
conditioning |
character string specifying the simulation scenario. Defaults to |
x0 |
matrix specifying the null distribution. Defaults to |
sig.level |
significance level used in test. Defaults to 0.05. |
B |
integer specifying the number of replicates used in the Monte Carlo test. Defaults to 10000. |
Details
Using conditioning="both"
corresponds to selecting simulate.p.value=TRUE
in chisq.test
. However, conditioning on both row and column marginals appears to be rarely justified in real data. Instead conditioning="total"
is the correct choice for testing independence. Similarly, conditioning="row"
is recommended when the row marginals e.g. are fixed by experimental design.
Both the alternative and the null are simulated under the parametric scenario estimated from the data matrix x
. This possibly induces a discrepancy with chisq.test.simulate
, where the null also is simulated from the specific data instance. Thus, the problem is that the null distribution depends on the model parameters.
Value
An object of class "power.htest"
.
Note
The code has not been optimized for speed, and might be slow.
Author(s)
Bo Markussen
See Also
Examples
# The Avadex dataset
Xobs <- matrix(c(2,3,6,40),2,2)
rownames(Xobs) <- c("Avadex +","Avadex -")
colnames(Xobs) <- c("Tumor +","Tumor -")
# In this example only the rows appear to be fixed by experimental design.
power.chisq.test.simulate(Xobs,"row")
power.chisq.test.simulate(Xobs,"total")