New Light on the 16-Fold Table

Lantent-trait theory provides a flexible and comprehensive framework for constructing models of the processes reflected in data on two dichotomous variables, each obseved twice for each member of a panel of repondents (i.e., data in the form of the so-called 16-fold table). The more important parts of the analysis developed from this theory can be carried out by elementary methods and therefore require no great mathematical or statistical sophistication. In several illustrative data sets, the observed changes are adequately accounted for with a model allowing no causal relationship between the two latent variables or their observable indicators. In other examples, a model of asymmetric causation is plausible; in still others, the situation is so complex that a convincing causal interpretation, excluding rival interpretations, is not available. The basic form of the latent-trait model can be modified to include parameters pertaining to association of the observed indicators. This modification is especially appropriate when the two variables arise from parallel observations on the memebers of dyads rather than from observations on two distict items (attitudes, actions) pertaining to individual respondent. Limitations of the illustrative analyses reported here are, for the most part, intrinsic to the 16-fold table itself, whatever the analytical strategy, or are shared with other forms of survey analysis. The latent-trait approach, however, may make such limitations easier to see.

[1]  O. D. Duncan On a dynamic response model of W. F. Kempf , 1983 .

[2]  Noel A Cressie,et al.  Characterizing the manifest probabilities of latent trait models , 1983 .

[3]  Tue Tjur,et al.  A Connection between Rasch's Item Analysis Model and a Multiplicative Poisson Model , 1982 .

[4]  Leo A. Goodman,et al.  Criteria for Determining Whether Certain Categories in a Cross-Classification Table Should Be Combined, with Special Reference to Occupational Categories in an Occupational Mobility Table , 1981, American Journal of Sociology.

[5]  R. K. Goldsen,et al.  Occupations and Values , 1980 .

[6]  D. Kandel Homophily, Selection, and Socialization in Adolescent Friendships , 1978, American Journal of Sociology.

[7]  J. Hagenaars Latent probability models with direct effects between indicators , 1978 .

[8]  James A. Davis,et al.  Studying categorical data over time , 1978 .

[9]  S. Haberman Analysis of qualitative data , 1978 .

[10]  Ronald C. Kessler Rethinking the 16-fold table problem , 1977 .

[11]  Wilhelm F. Kempf,et al.  Conditional Inference for the Dynamic Test Model , 1977 .

[12]  Neil Henry Latent structure analysis , 1969 .

[13]  L. A. Goodman The Analysis of Cross-Classified Data: Independence, Quasi-Independence, and Interactions in Contingency Tables with or without Missing Entries , 1968 .

[14]  O. D. Duncan,et al.  The American Occupational Structure , 1967 .

[15]  J. Stanley Quasi-Experimentation , 1965, The School Review.

[16]  E. A. Maxwell,et al.  Introduction to Mathematical Sociology , 1965 .

[17]  James S. Coleman,et al.  Models of change and response uncertainty , 1964 .

[18]  J. Coleman,et al.  High School Social Status, College Plans, and Interest in Academic Achievement: A Panel Analysis , 1963 .

[19]  Leo A. Goodman,et al.  Statistical Methods for Analyzing Processes of Change , 1962, American Journal of Sociology.

[20]  Paul F. Lazarsfeld,et al.  Notes on the History of Quantification in Sociology--Trends, Sources and Problems , 1961, Isis.

[21]  P. Lazarsfeld,et al.  Voting: A Study of Opinion Formation in a Presidential Campaign , 1954 .

[22]  S. Stouffer,et al.  Measurement and Prediction , 1954 .

[23]  A. B. Blankenship,et al.  Say it with Figures. , 1947 .