SUMMARY This paper considers a wide class of latent structure models. These models can serve as possible explanations of the observed relationships among a set of m manifest polytomous variables. The class of models considered here includes both models in which the parameters are identifiable and also models in which the parameters are not. For each of the models considered here, a relatively simple method is presented for calculating the maximum likeli- hood estimate of the frequencies in the m-way contingency table expected under the model, and for determining whether the parameters in the estimated model are identifiable. In addition, methods are presented for testing whether the model fits the observed data, and for replacing unidentifiable models that fit by identifiable models that fit. Some illus- trative applications to data are also included. This paper deals with the relationships among m polytomous variables, i.e. with the analysis of an m-way contingency table. These m variables are manifest variables in that, for each observed individual in a sample, his class with respect to each of the m variables is observed. We also consider here polytomous variables that are latent in that an individ- ual's class with respect to these variables is not observed. The classes of a latent variable will be called latent classes. Consider first a 4-way contingency table which cross-classifies a sample of n individuals with respect to four manifest polytomous variables A, B, C and D. If there is, say, some latent dichotomous variable X, so that each of the n individuals is in one of the two latent classes with respect to this variable, and within the tth latent class the manifest variables (A, B, C, D) are mutually independent, then this two-class latent structure would serve as a simple explanation of the observed relationships among the variables in the 4-way con- tingency table for the n individuals. There is a direct generalization when the latent variable has T classes. We shall present some relatively simple methods for determining whether the observed relationships among the variables in the m-way contingency table can be explained by a T-class structure, or by various modifications and extensions of this latent structure. To illustrate the methods we analyze Table 1, a 24 contingency table presented earlier by Stouffer & Toby (1951, 1962, 1963), which cross-classifies 216 respondents with respect to whether they tend towards universalistic values ( + ) or particularistic values (-) when confronted by each of four different situations of role conflict. The letters A, B, C and D in
[1]
Jackson Toby,et al.
Role Conflict and Personality
,
1951,
American Journal of Sociology.
[2]
T. W. Anderson.
On estimation of parameters in latent structure analysis
,
1954
.
[3]
R. McHugh.
Efficient estimation and local identification in latent class analysis
,
1956
.
[4]
Richard B. McHugh.
Note on “efficient estimation and local identification in latent class analysis”
,
1958
.
[5]
A. Madansky.
Determinantal methods in latent class analysis
,
1960
.
[6]
J. Coleman.
Introduction to Mathematical Sociology
,
1965
.
[7]
L. A. Goodman.
The Analysis of Cross-Classified Data: Independence, Quasi-Independence, and Interactions in Contingency Tables with or without Missing Entries
,
1968
.
[8]
Paul F. Lazarsfeld,et al.
Latent Structure Analysis.
,
1969
.
[9]
Leo A. Goodman,et al.
The analysis of multidimensional contingency tables when some variables are posterior to others: a modified path analysis approach
,
1973
.
[10]
L. A. Goodman.
The Analysis of Systems of Qualitative Variables When Some of the Variables Are Unobservable. Part I-A Modified Latent Structure Approach
,
1974,
American Journal of Sociology.
[11]
S. Haberman.
Log-Linear Models for Frequency Tables Derived by Indirect Observation: Maximum Likelihood Equations
,
1974
.