Hubbry Logo
Homogeneity and heterogeneity (statistics)Homogeneity and heterogeneity (statistics)Main
Open search
Homogeneity and heterogeneity (statistics)
Community hub
Homogeneity and heterogeneity (statistics)
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Homogeneity and heterogeneity (statistics)
Homogeneity and heterogeneity (statistics)
Homogeneity and heterogeneity (statistics)
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

In statistics, homogeneity and its opposite, heterogeneity, arise in describing the properties of a dataset, or several datasets. They relate to the validity of the often convenient assumption that the statistical properties of any one part of an overall dataset are the same as any other part. In meta-analysis, which combines data from any number of studies, homogeneity measures the differences or similarities between those studies' (see also study heterogeneity) estimates.

Homogeneity can be studied to several degrees of complexity. For example, considerations of homoscedasticity examine how much the variability of data-values changes throughout a dataset. However, questions of homogeneity apply to all aspects of statistical distributions, including the location parameter. Thus, a more detailed study would examine changes to the whole of the marginal distribution. An intermediate-level study might move from looking at the variability to studying changes in the skewness. In addition to these, questions of homogeneity also apply to the joint distributions.

The concept of homogeneity can be applied in many different ways. For certain types of statistical analysis, it is used to look for further properties that might need to be treated as varying within a dataset once some initial types of non-homogeneity have been dealt with.

Of variance

[edit]
This section is an excerpt from Homoscedasticity and heteroscedasticity.[edit]
Plot with random data showing homoscedasticity: at each value of x, the y-value of the dots has about the same variance.
Plot with random data showing heteroscedasticity: The variance of the y-values of the dots increases with increasing values of x.

In statistics, a sequence of random variables is homoscedastic (/ˌhoʊmoʊskəˈdæstɪk/) if all its random variables have the same finite variance; this is also known as homogeneity of variance. The complementary notion is called heteroscedasticity, also known as heterogeneity of variance. The spellings homoskedasticity and heteroskedasticity are also frequently used. “Skedasticity” comes from the Ancient Greek word “skedánnymi”, meaning “to scatter”.[1][2][3] Assuming a variable is homoscedastic when in reality it is heteroscedastic (/ˌhɛtəroʊskəˈdæstɪk/) results in unbiased but inefficient point estimates and in biased estimates of standard errors, and may result in overestimating the goodness of fit as measured by the Pearson coefficient.

The existence of heteroscedasticity is a major concern in regression analysis and the analysis of variance, as it invalidates statistical tests of significance that assume that the modelling errors all have the same variance. While the ordinary least squares (OLS) estimator is still unbiased in the presence of heteroscedasticity, it is inefficient and inference based on the assumption of homoskedasticity is misleading. In that case, generalized least squares (GLS) was frequently used in the past.[4][5] Nowadays, standard practice in econometrics is to include Heteroskedasticity-consistent standard errors instead of using GLS, as GLS can exhibit strong bias in small samples if the actual skedastic function is unknown.[6]

Because heteroscedasticity concerns expectations of the second moment of the errors, its presence is referred to as misspecification of the second order.[7]

The econometrician Robert Engle was awarded the 2003 Nobel Memorial Prize for Economics for his studies on regression analysis in the presence of heteroscedasticity, which led to his formulation of the autoregressive conditional heteroscedasticity (ARCH) modeling technique.[8]

Examples

[edit]

Regression

[edit]

Differences in the typical values across the dataset might initially be dealt with by constructing a regression model using certain explanatory variables to relate variations in the typical value to known quantities. There should then be a later stage of analysis to examine whether the errors in the predictions from the regression behave in the same way across the dataset. Thus, the question becomes one of the homogeneity of the distribution of the residuals, as the explanatory variables change. See regression analysis.

Time series

[edit]

The initial stages in analyzing a time series may involve plotting values against time to examine the series' homogeneity in various ways: stability across time as opposed to a trend, stability of local fluctuations over time.

Combining information across sites

[edit]

In hydrology, data series across a number of sites composed of annual values of the within-year annual maximum river flow are analysed. A common model is that the distributions of these values are the same for all sites apart from a simple scaling factor, so that the location and scale are linked in a simple way. There can then be questions of examining the homogeneity across sites of the distribution of the scaled values.

Combining information sources

[edit]

In meteorology, weather datasets are acquired over many years of record, and, as part of this, measurements at certain stations may cease occasionally while, at around the same time, measurements may start at nearby locations. There are then questions as to whether, if the records are combined to form a single longer set of records, those records can be considered homogeneous over time. An example of homogeneity testing of wind speed and direction data can be found in Romanić et al., 2015.[9]

Homogeneity within populations

[edit]

Simple population surveys may assume that responses will be homogeneous across the whole population. Assessing the homogeneity of the population would involve examining whether the responses of certain identifiable subpopulations differ from those of others. For example, car owners may differ from non-car owners, or there may be differences between different age groups.

Tests

[edit]

A test for homogeneity, in the sense of exact equivalence of statistical distributions, can be based on an E-statistic. A location test tests the simpler hypothesis that distributions have the same location parameter.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Homogeneity and heterogeneity (statistics)

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
In , homogeneity refers to the uniformity or equality of key properties across groups or samples, such as equal variances (also known as homoscedasticity) or consistent effect sizes, while heterogeneity describes variation or inequality in these properties, including unequal variances (heteroscedasticity) or diverse outcomes beyond what would predict. These concepts are foundational to many statistical analyses, as they influence the validity of assumptions underlying common procedures like the t-test and analysis of variance (ANOVA). Homogeneity of variance, a core assumption in parametric tests, posits that the spread of data around the is identical across populations or groups, enabling the pooling of variances to estimate overall population variability accurately. Violation of this assumption can inflate Type I error rates or reduce statistical power, often necessitating robust alternatives or transformations. Tests for homogeneity include , which is robust to non-normality and uses absolute deviations from group medians to compute a statistic compared to an , and , which is more sensitive to departures from normality but powerful under ideal conditions by leveraging a chi-squared statistic on pooled variances. Heterogeneity manifests in various contexts, such as heteroscedasticity in regression models where residual variance changes with predictor levels, potentially biasing standard errors and confidence intervals. In , statistical heterogeneity quantifies excess variability in study effect sizes compared to a fixed-effect model, often assessed via the Q statistic (testing against a ) or the I² index (expressing the percentage of due to heterogeneity rather than chance). High heterogeneity prompts random-effects models to account for between-study differences, enhancing generalizability but requiring exploration of sources like population diversity or methodological variations.

Core Definitions

Homogeneity

In , homogeneity refers to the quality or assumption of uniformity and similarity in characteristics across data elements, parameters, or distributions, such as equal means, equal variances, or identical distributional forms among subgroups or populations. This property implies that the data or processes generating the data do not vary systematically in their core features, allowing for consistent treatment in analysis. The concept of homogeneity emerged in early 20th-century statistics, closely tied to foundational work on experimental design and inference. It gained prominence through Ronald Fisher's development of analysis of variance (ANOVA) in the 1920s, where homogeneity served as a key assumption to enable valid comparisons of group means under controlled conditions. Fisher's framework at the Rothamsted Experimental Station emphasized homogeneity to partition variance reliably between experimental factors and error, laying the groundwork for modern parametric methods. Homogeneity manifests in distinct types, including marginal homogeneity. Marginal homogeneity refers to the equality of marginal distributions in contingency tables, where row and column proportions are identical, indicating no systematic shifts between paired observations. The assumption or presence of homogeneity has critical implications for , as it permits the pooling of data from multiple sources to increase sample size and precision while simplifying model specifications. This uniformity reduces complexity in and testing, enhancing the reliability of conclusions drawn from combined datasets. A specific instance is homogeneity of variance, which ensures equal spread in group distributions and is explored further in dedicated sections.

Heterogeneity

In statistics, heterogeneity refers to the presence of diversity or non-uniformity in the properties of a or across multiple datasets, characterized by differences in means, variances, or the shapes of distributions. This diversity indicates dissimilarity among elements that comprise the whole, diverging from a state of perfect conformity where all components exhibit identical characteristics. For instance, heterogeneity may arise when means vary significantly or when the spread of (variance) differs across populations, complicating assumptions of uniformity in . Heterogeneity is broadly categorized into observed and unobserved subtypes. Observed heterogeneity is directly visible in the data, often captured through variations in measurable covariates or explicit group differences. In contrast, unobserved or latent heterogeneity remains hidden and stems from unmeasured factors, typically modeled via random effects to account for individual- or group-level variations not explained by observed variables, as in longitudinal or settings. The concept gained prominence in the 1970s through the development of , where it emerged as a counterpoint to homogeneity assumptions in integrating findings from diverse studies. Gene V. Glass coined the term "meta-analysis" in 1976, defining it as the statistical synthesis of results from multiple analyses to quantify and explore variations across studies rather than assuming consistent effects. This approach highlighted heterogeneity as essential for understanding true effect diversity beyond . Failing to account for heterogeneity can lead to biased parameter estimates and invalid statistical inferences, such as in where ignoring unobserved heterogeneity systematically distorts maximum likelihood estimates of associations. To mitigate these issues, advanced models are employed, including hierarchical (or multilevel) models that incorporate random effects to capture nested variations, as introduced by and Ware for longitudinal . Mixture models further address latent heterogeneity by positing underlying subpopulations with distinct distributions, enabling decomposition of observed diversity into component sources.

Key Statistical Concepts

Homogeneity of Variance

Homogeneity of variance, also known as homoscedasticity, refers to the condition in which the variance of the dependent variable remains constant across all levels of the independent variable or across different groups in a dataset. This assumption ensures that the spread of data points does not systematically change with the value of the predictor or group membership, providing a stable measure of dispersion. Mathematically, for kk groups or levels, homogeneity of variance is expressed as the equality of population variances: σ12=σ22=⋯=σk2\sigma_1^2 = \sigma_2^2 = \dots = \sigma_k^2. This notation underscores the in related tests, where deviations indicate heteroscedasticity. The assumption is foundational to the validity of many parametric statistical procedures, including the independent samples t-test, analysis of variance (ANOVA), and , as it allows for the pooling of variances to estimate a common error term. Violation of this assumption can lead to biased standard errors and inflated Type I error rates, particularly when sample sizes are unequal, thereby undermining the reliability of p-values and confidence intervals. Diagnostic checks for homogeneity of variance primarily involve visual inspections, such as plotting residuals against fitted values, where a random scatter around zero with constant spread supports the assumption, while patterns like a or shape suggest violation. Informal methods, including boxplots of residuals by group, can further reveal differences in variability across levels. Within the broader context of statistical homogeneity, which encompasses equality across means, distributions, or other parameters, homogeneity of variance specifically addresses equality of dispersion and is distinct from assumptions about or shape.

Heterogeneity in Distributions

Heterogeneity in distributions arises when data from a exhibit differences in the underlying probability distributions across subpopulations or groups, extending beyond mere variance differences to include variations in parameters such as means, , or , as well as changes in distributional forms, for example, from symmetric normal to asymmetric skewed distributions. This form of heterogeneity often manifests when observations are drawn from multiple latent classes, each governed by distinct probabilistic structures, leading to a composite overall distribution that does not conform to a single parametric family. A classic example of distributional heterogeneity is captured by mixture distributions, where the observed data are generated from several underlying subpopulations with different parameters. For a two-component Gaussian mixture, the is given by f(x)=πϕ(x∣μ1,σ1)+(1−π)ϕ(x∣μ2,σ2),f(x) = \pi \phi(x \mid \mu_1, \sigma_1) + (1 - \pi) \phi(x \mid \mu_2, \sigma_2), where ϕ(⋅∣μ,σ)\phi(\cdot \mid \mu, \sigma) denotes with μ\mu and standard deviation σ\sigma, and π∈(0,1)\pi \in (0,1) is the mixing proportion for the first component. Such models are particularly useful in scenarios like or segmentation, where subpopulations (e.g., distinct customer types) contribute to the observed variability in ways that a unimodal distribution cannot adequately represent. Detection of distributional heterogeneity typically involves goodness-of-fit tests to assess whether a single distribution adequately describes the or if a is necessary; common approaches include the comparing a against a single-component alternative. Alternatively, non-parametric methods, such as , can reveal or irregularities in the empirical distribution that signal underlying heterogeneity. To model and account for distributional heterogeneity, finite mixture models provide a parametric framework, fitted via the expectation-maximization (EM) algorithm to estimate component parameters and mixing proportions, allowing for the decomposition of the data into homogeneous subpopulations. Non-parametric alternatives, such as mixture models, offer flexibility by placing priors on the number of components and their forms, avoiding rigid assumptions about the distributional family. The presence of distributional heterogeneity can signal the existence of natural clustering or subpopulations within the data, which, if unaddressed, impacts detection by misclassifying points from minority components as anomalies and biases by violating assumptions of a generative . For instance, ignoring structure in regression or testing may lead to inefficient estimators or inflated Type I error rates, underscoring the need for heterogeneity-aware models to ensure robust conclusions.

Applications in Analysis

Regression Models

In linear regression models, the assumption of homoscedasticity posits that the variance of the error terms, or residuals, remains constant across all values of the independent variables. Formally, the residuals ϵ\epsilon are modeled as ϵ∼N(0,σ2)\epsilon \sim N(0, \sigma^2), where σ2\sigma^2 is a fixed constant independent of the predictors XX. This condition ensures that the ordinary least squares (OLS) estimator achieves the best linear unbiased estimator properties under the Gauss-Markov theorem, providing efficient and reliable inference. Violation of this assumption, known as heteroscedasticity, occurs when the error variance changes systematically with the level of the predictors or the fitted values, leading to non-constant spread in the residuals. Heteroscedasticity can be detected through diagnostic tests, such as the Breusch-Pagan test, which assesses whether the squared residuals are correlated with the independent variables. The test proceeds by fitting an auxiliary regression of the squared OLS residuals on the original predictors and computing the Lagrange multiplier statistic LM=nR2LM = n R^2, where nn is the sample size and R2R^2 is the from the auxiliary model; under the of homoscedasticity, LMLM follows a . This approach provides a straightforward framework for identifying heteroscedasticity without requiring knowledge of its specific form. The presence of heteroscedasticity does not bias the OLS point estimates, which remain consistent and unbiased, but it renders them inefficient by failing to minimize the variance among linear unbiased estimators. More critically, the standard errors of the coefficients become invalid, typically underestimated, which inflates t-statistics and leads to overly narrow intervals and spurious significance tests. As a result, tests and prediction intervals may yield incorrect conclusions, undermining the reliability of in . To address heteroscedasticity, remedies include (WLS), which adjusts for varying error variances by assigning weights wi=1/σi2w_i = 1 / \sigma_i^2 to each , thereby minimizing a weighted sum of squared residuals and restoring . Here, σi2\sigma_i^2 represents the heteroscedastic variance for the ii-th , often estimated iteratively or via auxiliary models. Another common approach is , such as applying the natural logarithm to the dependent variable, log⁡(y)\log(y), which can homogenize the error variance when it increases proportionally with the mean, particularly in multiplicative error structures. For instance, in economic datasets modeling consumption expenditure against income, heteroscedasticity often manifests as increasing residual variance at higher income levels, where spending variability widens; applying WLS or a log transformation can mitigate this issue and improve model validity.

Time Series Data

In time series analysis, homogeneity refers to stationarity, a property where the statistical characteristics of the data remain constant over time. Specifically, a is weakly stationary if its is constant, denoted as E[Xt]=μE[X_t] = \mu for all tt, its variance is finite and constant, Var(Xt)=σ2\text{Var}(X_t) = \sigma^2, and its depends only on the time lag kk, given by Cov(Xt,Xt+k)=γ(k)\text{Cov}(X_t, X_{t+k}) = \gamma(k). This temporal uniformity allows for reliable modeling and forecasting, as the underlying process does not exhibit trends or varying volatility that could distort inferences. Strict stationarity extends this to the full joint distribution being invariant to time shifts, but weak stationarity is more commonly assumed in practice due to its focus on second-order moments. Heterogeneity in time series manifests as non-stationarity, often through structural breaks or shifts where parameters like or variance change abruptly, such as increased volatility following major events like financial crises. For instance, variance may spike post-crisis due to heightened , leading to time-varying conditional heteroskedasticity. These shifts, as explored in seminal work on unit roots and breaks, can mimic trends or cycles that invalidate standard assumptions, requiring models that account for such discontinuities. The implications of heterogeneity are profound: regressing non-stationary series can yield spurious results, where unrelated variables appear correlated due to shared stochastic trends, often producing inflated R2R^2 values and misleading significance. To address this, techniques like differencing transform the series to stationarity, or cointegration analysis identifies long-run equilibrium relationships among non-stationary variables, ensuring linear combinations remain stationary. In modeling, ARIMA processes assume homogeneity (stationarity) after integration steps, capturing autoregressive and moving average components under constant parameters. For handling variance heterogeneity, GARCH models parameterize time-varying volatility as σt2=α0+α1ϵt−12+βσt−12,\sigma_t^2 = \alpha_0 + \alpha_1 \epsilon_{t-1}^2 + \beta \sigma_{t-1}^2, where past squared residuals and variances drive conditional heteroskedasticity, widely applied in financial time series. Detection often involves the Augmented Dickey-Fuller test, which augments the basic unit root test with lags to assess non-stationarity under the null hypothesis of a unit root.

Meta-Analysis and Combining Sources

In , homogeneity refers to the assumption that all studies share a common true θ, with observed differences attributable solely to . This premise underpins the fixed-effects model, where the pooled effect size estimator is given by \hat{θ} = \sum (w_i \hat{θ_i}) / \sum w_i, with weights w_i = 1/σ_i² based on the inverse variance of each study's effect size \hat{θ_i}. Under this model, the overall effect incorporates only within-study variability, making it suitable when studies are sufficiently similar in , intervention, and outcomes. Heterogeneity arises when study-specific effects deviate from a common θ due to unmodeled factors such as differences in populations or methodologies, necessitating a random-effects model that accounts for both within- and between-study variance. In this framework, the between-study variance τ² is estimated using the DerSimonian-Laird method: \hat{τ²} = \max(0, (Q - (k-1)) / (S² - p)), where Q is Cochran's heterogeneity statistic, k is the number of studies, S² = \sum w_i - \sum w_i² / \sum w_i, and p = k-1. The pooled estimator then adjusts weights to w_i^* = 1/(σ_i² + \hat{τ²}), allowing for broader inference across diverse study contexts. To assess homogeneity, the Cochran's Q statistic serves as a primary test, defined as Q = \sum w_i (\hat{θ_i} - \hat{θ})^2, which follows a χ² distribution with k-1 degrees of freedom under the null hypothesis of no heterogeneity. A significant Q (typically p < 0.10) indicates heterogeneity, prompting model selection or subgroup analysis. Complementing Q, the I² index quantifies the proportion of total variation due to heterogeneity as I² = 100% \times (Q - (k-1))/Q, with values above 50% often signaling moderate to high inconsistency. These concepts find application in combining data from multiple clinical trials, where homogeneity supports precise estimates of treatment efficacy, while heterogeneity—common due to variations in patient demographics or trial settings—guides the use of random-effects models to avoid biased conclusions. Similarly, in ecological meta-analyses synthesizing site-specific data on biodiversity or environmental responses, assessing heterogeneity via Q and I² helps account for spatial or methodological differences, enhancing generalizability. Forest plots visualize these analyses by displaying individual study effect sizes as points with confidence intervals, alongside the pooled estimate and heterogeneity metrics, facilitating intuitive interpretation of consistency across sources.

Testing Procedures

Tests for Variance Homogeneity

Tests for variance homogeneity assess whether the variances of two or more groups are equal, a key assumption in procedures like analysis of variance (ANOVA). These tests are essential when homogeneity of variance, or homoscedasticity, is required for valid inference across groups. Levene's test, introduced by Howard Levene in 1960, is a robust method for testing equality of variances that does not assume normality of the data. It transforms the data by computing the absolute deviations from the group mean, ∣Yij−Yˉj∣|Y_{ij} - \bar{Y}_j|, for each observation YijY_{ij} in group jj, and then applies a one-way ANOVA to these transformed values. The test statistic is the F-statistic, F=MSbetweenMSwithinF = \frac{\text{MS}_\text{between}}{\text{MS}_\text{within}}, where MS denotes mean squares, which follows an F-distribution under the null hypothesis of equal variances. This approach makes it less sensitive to outliers and non-normal distributions compared to parametric alternatives. Bartlett's test, developed by Maurice Stevenson Bartlett in 1937, is a parametric test suitable for normally distributed data to evaluate homogeneity of variances across kk groups with total sample size NN. The test statistic is given by χ2=(N−k)ln⁡(sp2)−∑j=1k(nj−1)ln⁡(sj2),\chi^2 = (N - k) \ln(s_p^2) - \sum_{j=1}^k (n_j - 1) \ln(s_j^2), where sp2s_p^2 is the pooled variance, sj2s_j^2 is the variance of group jj, and njn_j is the sample size of group jj; this statistic approximately follows a chi-squared distribution with k−1k-1 degrees of freedom under the null hypothesis. However, it is sensitive to departures from normality and outliers, which can inflate the Type I error rate. The Brown-Forsythe test, proposed by Morton B. Brown and Alvin B. Forsythe in 1974, is a modification of that enhances robustness by using deviations from the group median instead of the mean. This change makes it particularly effective for skewed distributions or data with heavy tails, as the median is less affected by extreme values. Like , it employs an ANOVA on the absolute deviations ∣Yij−Y~j∣|Y_{ij} - \tilde{Y}_j|, where Y~j\tilde{Y}_j is the median of group jj, yielding an F-statistic for inference. Regarding assumptions and power, Bartlett's test requires normality within each group for accurate control of the Type I error rate but offers higher power to detect variance differences when assumptions hold. In contrast, Levene's and Brown-Forsythe tests are non-parametric in their robustness and maintain better performance under non-normality, though they may have slightly lower power in ideal normal conditions; for multiple groups, post-hoc pairwise comparisons can identify specific heterogeneous pairs. Simulations indicate that Brown-Forsythe often outperforms Levene's in skewed settings, while Levene's is preferable for symmetric non-normal data.

Tests for Population Homogeneity

Tests for population homogeneity assess whether multiple populations share the same underlying parameters, such as means, proportions, or full distributions, which is crucial for validating assumptions in comparative analyses across groups. These tests extend beyond variance equality to evaluate overall parameter consistency, often under the null hypothesis that all populations are identical. Common approaches include parametric tests like analysis of variance (ANOVA) for continuous means and nonparametric alternatives for distributions or categorical data, with adjustments needed for multiple comparisons to control error rates. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) is a foundational parametric test for homogeneity of means across k ≥ 2 groups, assuming normality and equal variances. Developed by , it partitions total variance into between-group (MS_between) and within-group (MS_within) components, yielding the F-statistic under the null hypothesis of equal population means. The test statistic is computed as F=MSbetweenMSwithin,F = \frac{MS_{between}}{MS_{within}}, where MS_between = SS_between / (k-1) and MS_within = SS_within / (N-k), with SS denoting sum of squares and N the total sample size; the F follows an F-distribution with (k-1, N-k) degrees of freedom. Rejection of the null indicates at least one mean differs, though post-hoc tests are required to identify specific disparities; the equal variance assumption links to prior homogeneity of variance checks but focuses here on mean equality. For categorical data, the chi-square test of homogeneity evaluates whether proportions are equal across populations, often framed as testing independence in a contingency table as a proxy for parameter uniformity. Introduced by , it measures deviation between observed (O_{ij}) and expected (E_{ij}) frequencies under the null of identical distributions. The test statistic is χ2=∑(Oij−Eij)2Eij,\chi^2 = \sum \frac{(O_{ij} - E_{ij})^2}{E_{ij}}, distributed as chi-square with (r-1)(c-1) degrees of freedom for r rows and c columns; expected values are row totals times column totals divided by grand total. This test is robust for large samples (expected frequencies >5) and detects deviations in proportional structure, such as varying response categories across groups. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS) test provides a nonparametric approach to homogeneity of full distributions, comparing empirical cumulative distribution functions (ECDFs) from two or more samples without assuming a specific form. Originating from works by and , the two-sample version computes the maximum vertical distance D between ECDFs F_1(x) and F_2(x): D=sup⁡x∣F1(x)−F2(x)∣,D = \sup_x |F_1(x) - F_2(x)|, with critical values tabulated or approximated asymptotically under the null of identical distributions; for multiple samples, pairwise two-sample KS tests can be performed with adjustments for multiple comparisons, or dedicated k-sample extensions can be used. It is sensitive to differences anywhere in the distribution, including , scale, or , making it versatile for continuous data where parametric assumptions fail. In stratified designs, the Mantel-Haenszel test assesses homogeneity of associations, such as odds ratios, across subgroups while adjusting for confounders. Proposed by Nathan Mantel and William Haenszel for studies, it aggregates 2x2 tables from s strata, focusing on the common effect measure. The is a chi-square form: χMH2=[∑(ai−E(ai))]2Var(∑ai),\chi^2_{MH} = \frac{[\sum (a_i - E(a_i))]^2}{\mathrm{Var}(\sum a_i)}, where a_i is the count in cell (1,1) of stratum i, E(a_i) its under no association, and variance computed from marginals; it follows a chi-square distribution with 1 degree of freedom under the null of homogeneous odds ratios. This method is particularly useful in for combining evidence across matched or layered populations. When conducting multiple tests, such as post-hoc pairwise comparisons after ANOVA, adjustments like the control the by dividing the significance level α by the number of tests (e.g., α' = α/m for m comparisons). Attributed to Carlo Bonferroni, this conservative approach ensures the overall Type I error remains below α but may reduce power; it is widely adopted in homogeneity testing to avoid inflated false positives across group pairs.

References

  1. https://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/eda/section3/eda35a.htm
  2. https://courses.washington.edu/psy524a/_book/tests-for-homogeneity-of-variance-and-normality.html
  3. https://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/eda/section3/eda357.htm
  4. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1767262/
  5. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12326561/
  6. https://statisticsbyjim.com/glossary/homogeneous/
  7. https://www.statisticshowto.com/homogeneity-homogeneous/
  8. https://www.statisticssolutions.com/free-resources/directory-of-statistical-analyses/anova/
  9. https://www.britannica.com/topic/variance-analysis-statistics
  10. https://online.stat.psu.edu/stat504/lesson/11/11.3/11.3.3-0
  11. https://www.tcpress.com/gene-v.-glass
  12. https://www.math.montana.edu/jobo/st541/sec2e.pdf
  13. https://learninganalytics.upenn.edu/ryanbaker/OLDCOURSES/4122-ANOVA-pt2-v3.pdf
  14. https://online.stat.psu.edu/stat502/lesson/3/3.2
  15. https://www.jmlr.org/papers/volume23/21-0585/21-0585.pdf
  16. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/book/10.1002/0471721182
  17. https://projecteuclid.org/journals/brazilian-journal-of-probability-and-statistics/volume-32/issue-2/Mixture-models-applied-to-heterogeneous-populations/10.1214/16-BJPS345.pdf
  18. https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev-statistics-031017-100325
  19. https://www.huber.embl.de/msmb/04-chap.html
  20. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4453966/
  21. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6802968/
  22. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1911963
  23. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2685594
  24. https://online.stat.psu.edu/stat501/lesson/13/13.1
  25. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167629698000253
  26. https://www.bauer.uh.edu/rsusmel/phd/ec1-12.pdf
  27. https://www.stat.berkeley.edu/~aditya/Site/Statistics_153%3B_Spring_2012_files/Spring2012Statistics153LectureFive.pdf
  28. https://www.bu.edu/econ/files/2019/01/structural-change-oxford.pdf
  29. https://gwern.net/doc/economics/1974-granger.pdf
  30. https://www.reed.edu/economics/parker/312/tschapters/S13_Ch_4.pdf
  31. https://public.econ.duke.edu/~boller/Published_Papers/joe_86.pdf
  32. https://www.bauer.uh.edu/rsusmel/phd/ec2-5.pdf
  33. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10766278/
  34. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378375809003073
  35. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41433-021-01867-6
  36. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5965542/
  37. https://analyse-it.com/docs/user-guide/compare-groups/dispersion-tests
  38. https://www.ncss.com/wp-content/themes/ncss/pdf/Procedures/PASS/Brown-Forsythe_Test_of_Variances-Simulation.pdf
  39. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0167947395000542
  40. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4612-4380-9_6
  41. https://ia601406.us.archive.org/2/items/in.ernet.dli.2015.137901/2015.137901.Statistical-Methods-For-Research-Workers-Thirteenth-Edition_text.pdf
  42. https://jhanley.biostat.mcgill.ca/bios601/Proportion/Pearson1900.pdf
  43. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4612-4380-9_9
  44. https://www.scienceopen.com/document?vid=5fbc82af-6b1e-4ad9-a2a5-4a0d06a51ed6
  45. https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article-abstract/22/4/719/900746
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.