Goodman and Kruskal's lambda
In probability theory and statistics, Goodman & Kruskal's lambda () is a measure of proportional reduction in error in cross tabulation analysis. For any sample with a nominal independent variable and dependent variable (or ones that can be treated nominally), it indicates the extent to which the modal categories and frequencies for each value of the independent variable differ from the overall modal category and frequency, i.e. for all values of the independent variable together. can be calculated with the equation
- is the overall non-modal frequency, and
- is the sum of the non-modal frequencies for each value of the independent variable.
||This section's factual accuracy is disputed. (December 2011) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)|
Although Goodman and Kruskal's lambda is used to calculate association between variables, it yields a value of 0 (no association) whenever two variables are in accord—that is, when the modal category is the same for all values of the independent variable, even if the modal frequencies or percentages vary. Consider the table below, which describes a fictitious sample of 350 individuals, categorized by relationship status and blood pressure.
For this sample,
even though the data demonstrate a pronounced relationship between the independent and dependent variables.
|This article relies too much on references to primary sources. (July 2012) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)|
- Goodman, L.A., Kruskal, W.H. (1954) "Measures of association for cross classifications". Part I. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 49, 732–764. JSTOR 281536
- Goodman, L.A., Kruskal, W.H. (1959) "Measures of Association for Cross Classifications. II: Further Discussion and References". Journal of the American Statistical Association, 52, 123–163. JSTOR 2282143
- Goodman, L.A., Kruskal, W.H. (1963) "Measures of Association for Cross Classifications III: Approximate Sampling Theory", Journal of the American Statistical Association, 58, 310–364. JSTOR 2283271 doi:10.1080/01621459.1963.10500850