turn on suggestions

Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.

Showing results for

- JMP User Community
- :
- Discussions
- :
- Discussions
- :
- Standardized residuals in two-way tables

Topic Options

- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Mark Topic as New
- Mark Topic as Read
- Float this Topic for Current User
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Printer Friendly Page

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Get Direct Link
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content

Mar 9, 2017 8:56 AM
(2201 views)

1 ACCEPTED SOLUTION

Accepted Solutions

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Get Direct Link
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content

Mar 10, 2017 5:49 AM
(4294 views)

Solution

I discovered what you meant by the error and corrected the computation. Also, the launch dialog now provides a choice between the adjusted or the not adjusted computation, with not adjusted as the default choice.

Thanks for pointing out the error. That is why I asked for your review! I was taking a short cut and missed the important distinction in the counting process.

Learn it once, use it forever!

11 REPLIES

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Get Direct Link
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content

Mar 9, 2017 9:17 AM
(2199 views)

You can analyze two-way contingency tables using **Analyze** > **Fit Y by X** (launches the **Contingency** platform) or by using **Analyze** > **Fit Model** (launches **Nominal Logistic** platform or **Ordinal Logistic** platform, depending on modeling type of response variable). Unfortunately, none of these analyses provide the residual that you want.

I am also unaware of any script for such a result.

Learn it once, use it forever!

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Get Direct Link
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content

Mar 9, 2017 9:21 AM
(2197 views)

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Get Direct Link
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content

Mar 9, 2017 10:13 AM
(2196 views)

The computation is simple so I scripted it for you. It is a simple script without any extra features. It will launch the Contingency platform with your selected response and factor and then add a new report at the bottom with the standardized residuals.

I would appreciate it if you would independently verify the results, perhaps running your example through SAS first and then JMP.

Learn it once, use it forever!

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Get Direct Link
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content

Mar 10, 2017 12:06 AM
(2177 views)

Thank you for your script.

Actually there are two formulas for the std res: adjusted and not adjusted. The one you used was the adjusted one (which is fine), but there should be an error in the way pidot# and pdotj# are calculated. Unfortunately I can't really understand the script, hence I can not fix it. I simply added a row with the (slightly simpler) alternative formula, just to check where the problem is - in case you are still interested.

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Get Direct Link
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content

Mar 10, 2017 4:59 AM
(2157 views)

This formula is from the SAS documentation for the FREQ procedure:

I didn't see mention of an adjusted or not adjusted residual, only this formula. You modification of the script is fine, but you can comment out the line with the adjusted formula. You are computing the residual twice.

What do you ;mean "there should be an error in the way pidot# and pdotj# are calculated?"

Why do you prefer the un-adjusted version?

Learn it once, use it forever!

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Get Direct Link
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content

Mar 10, 2017 5:49 AM
(4295 views)

I discovered what you meant by the error and corrected the computation. Also, the launch dialog now provides a choice between the adjusted or the not adjusted computation, with not adjusted as the default choice.

Thanks for pointing out the error. That is why I asked for your review! I was taking a short cut and missed the important distinction in the counting process.

Learn it once, use it forever!

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Get Direct Link
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content

Mar 10, 2017 7:44 AM
(2144 views)

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Get Direct Link
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content

Mar 10, 2017 9:20 AM
(2141 views)

Actually, I mistakenly got the computation of the not adjusted and adjusted backward. I fixed it. I also added the option analysis Freq role in case your data is pre-summarized. My apologies.

Use the new script here.

Learn it once, use it forever!

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Get Direct Link
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content

Mar 10, 2017 9:28 AM
(2139 views)