1
$\begingroup$

I am using the fourth-corner method in one of my papers (for those who need the name). The method was developed to test associations between variables in two datasets. In my case, the datasets contains traits of species (e.g. trait Size with modalities 'small', 'medium', 'large'). The method recognizes the data type and then apply appropriate statistics.

The correct cases:

  1. If two variables are quantitative, the fourthcorner calculates Pearson correlations.
  2. If two variables are qualitative, factorial, the method calculates a Chi2.
  3. If the variables are mix, it calculates a Pseudo-F test.

However, in my study and a study I criticize, we had to convert factorial data into categorical binary data. In my case, instead of having ONE trait column containing small, medium, large, I have 3 columns, small, medium, large coded as factors yes or no. In that other study, they coded as 0/1. If coded as 0/1, the data is first standardized.

If categorical and coded as 0/1 instead of factorial (e.g. biological traits of species, coded as presence/absence 0/1), the method will calculate Pearson correlations instead of Chi2. Or actually, "will return Pearson correlations" if wrongly specified in the output. Which is what they did and analyze in the study.

I am trying to justify why this is wrong, why you should use categorical data coded as yes-no and do a Chi2, but I am not entirely sure how to explain it, or justify how correlations calculated from the 0/1 do not mean what one thinks.

If we have two categorical variables, height and weight, split in class such as:

height: short, medium, tall (0/1)

weight: thin, large (0/1)

To my understanding: When you calculate correlation between short and thin, you calculate correlations of being short/not short, with thin/not thin as the variables are non-dichotomous.

How would you justify that?

Tables look like this:

for their data

Short Medium Tall
0 1 0
1 0 0
0 0 1
Thin Large
0 1
0 1
1 0

for my data

Short Medium Tall
no yes no
yes no no
no no yes
Thin Large
no yes
no yes
yes no

Best,

$\endgroup$
13
  • $\begingroup$ I personaly fail to fully understand the question. I would benefit if an example of both cases (ie correct and incorrect application of algorithm) is presented $\endgroup$ – Nikos M. Apr 28 at 14:26
  • $\begingroup$ @NikosM. Ok I will try to explain it. The paper I am referring to is Spitz et al. 2014 doi: 10.1111/1365-2656.12218 $\endgroup$ – Pierre O Apr 28 at 14:30
  • $\begingroup$ @NikosM. I added more details. Is it better? $\endgroup$ – Pierre O Apr 28 at 14:59
  • $\begingroup$ So The problem is when categorical variables are one-hot-encoded and then associated with chi2 test. This would lead to wrong results $\endgroup$ – Nikos M. Apr 28 at 15:00
  • $\begingroup$ Not sure what one-hot-encoded means but the problem is when categorical variables are coded as 0/1 and the method calculate a correlation on that. All variables are categorical 0/1, and some are not dichotomous. The correct procedure should be to calculation the frequencies of observation and use a Chi2. Interpreting correlations based on categorical 0/1 leads to wrong interpretations. $\endgroup$ – Pierre O Apr 28 at 15:03

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.