INTRODUCTION Ecologists use discriminant analysis, in part, to examine the correct classification of species or individuals by functional or taxonomic group based on some predictor set of variables (Williams, 1981, 1983). The effectiveness of variable sets of data in discriminating between groups can thus be assessed. A problem, typically encountered in applying discriminant analysis, is unequal group sample sizes. In extreme situations unequal group sizes may lead to a very high percent correct classification but the improvement over random correct classification may be slight. As an example, if one wished to classify individuals of species A and B with sample sizes of 25 and 75, respectively, the probability of correct classification for each group is not 50%. Any individual has an a priori .25 probability of belonging to species A and a .75 probability of belonging to species B. The posterior chance of correct classification will be unclear to a researcher who does not apply a chance-corrected procedure. While a chancecorrected measure of correct prediction is more important as sample sizes become more disparate, such a procedure is useful even with equal group sample sizes. We present an explanation of Cohen's kappa statistic which is useful in interpreting the classification results of discriminant analysis when group sample sizes are equal or unequal. A numerical example is employed in Table 1 taken from Cody (1978). This statistic was developed by Cohen (1960) as a method for objectively computing the chance-corrected percentage of agreement between actual and predicted group memberships. Cohen (1968) later presented a generalized form which was subsequently applied to discriminant analysis in the educational literature by Wiedemann and Fenster (1978).
[1]
B. Everitt,et al.
Large sample standard errors of kappa and weighted kappa.
,
1969
.
[2]
J. Mosher,et al.
THE INFLUENCE OF SEASONALITY AND SELECTED WEATHER VARIABLES ON AUTUMN MIGRATION OF THREE SPECIES OF HAWKS THROUGH THE CENTRAL APPALACHIANS
,
1982
.
[3]
C. Fenster,et al.
The Use of Chance Corrected Percentage of Agreement to Interpret the Results of a Discriminant Analysis
,
1978
.
[4]
M. Cody.
Habitat Selection and Interspecific Territoriality among the Sylviid Warblers of England and Sweden
,
1978
.
[5]
D. Sparling,et al.
Multivariate analysis of avian vocalizations.
,
1978,
Journal of theoretical biology.
[6]
Jacob Cohen.
A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales
,
1960
.
[7]
D. J. Shure,et al.
The Effects of Loblolly Pine Plantations on Small Mammal Populations
,
1980
.
[8]
D. Peden,et al.
Comparison of blood characteristics in plains bison, wood bison, and their hybrids.
,
1979,
Canadian journal of zoology.
[9]
J. Richard Landis,et al.
Large sample variance of kappa in the case of different sets of raters.
,
1979
.
[10]
D. G. Morrison,et al.
Bias in Multiple Discriminant Analysis
,
1965
.
[11]
D. G. Morrison.
On the Interpretation of Discriminant Analysis
,
1969
.
[12]
J. Mosher,et al.
Nest-site habitat selected by woodland hawks in the central Appalachians
,
1981
.