You are on page 1of 32

# Multiple Discriminant Analysis: SPSS Output

No
Pattern of functions
at centroids
1.evaluated
Ratio of valid
cases: Indep variables = 20:1(ideal) & 5:1(okay). In our case 154:4
interpreted?
2.correctly
Min cases
(at least 20) in smallest group > indep variables. In our case: cases = 42 & 4
3. Wilks Lambda (rel. measure) WSS/TSS (group means differ) 0<<1(group means same). In
case of 1 discriminant Fn. (DF) look at sigf.
4. Discriminant Fn. = # of groups 1
Yes (higher, the better) depicts rel. discriminatory power of DF.
5. Eigen value: BSS/WSS
6. Boxs M H0: HGNS of Var-Covar Matrix of Indep variables

After converting the data to SPSS format, click on Classify, then click Discriminant.
A box titled, Discriminant Analysis will come up. Click on Grouping Variable. This is the non-metric
dependent variable. Define its range. Then enter the independent variables. There are two methods
for MDA Enter method and Stepwise method. We will start with Enter method.
Next click on Statistics. There are 3 headings here: Descriptives (click all boxes), Function
Coefficients (click none) and Matrices (click none). In descriptives we have Means, Univariate
ANOVAs, and Boxs M.
Means: We use the group means for interpretation as in the HATB example.
Univariate ANOVAs: Pursuing these tests suggests which variables might be useful
discriminants.
Boxs M: A test of equality of group variance-covariance matrices. For sufficiently large
samples a high p-value signifies that there is insufficient evidence that the matrices differ.
H0: the variance/covariance matrices of independent variables across groups are the same;
H1: the variance/covariance matrices across groups are different.
Click continue and go to Classify.
Prior Probabilities: compute from group sizes: This incorporates the sizes of the groups as defined by
the dependent variable into the classification of the cases using the discriminant functions.
Display: Casewise results: This will give you the classification details for each case in the output.
Display: Summary table: This will include summary tables comparing actual and predicted
classification.
Display: Leave-one-out classification: This is to ask SPSS to include a cross-validation classification
in the output. This option produces a less biased estimate of classification accuracy by sequentially
holding each case out of the calculations for the discriminant functions, and using the derived
functions to classify the case held out.
Use Covariance Matrix: Within-groups: The Covariance matrices are the measure of the dispersion in
the groups defined by the dependent variable. If we fail the homogeneity of group variances test
(Boxs M), our option is use Separate groups covariance in classification. Hence, it is good if the null
hypothesis is accepted.
Plots: Combined-groups: This will help to obtain a visual plot of the relationship between functions
and groups defined by the dependent variable.

Discriminant
Introduction: Based on a discriminant analysis using the simultaneous method for including
variables age [age], highest year of school completed [educ], gender [gender], and total family
income [incom98] were found to be useful in distinguishing between groups defined by the dependent
variable seen thriller movie in last year [tmovie].
A discriminant function differentiated survey respondents who had not seen a thriller movie in the
last year from survey respondents who had seen thriller movie in the last year.

## (I) Analysis Case Processing Summary

Unweighte
d Cases
Valid
Excluded
Missing or out-of-range group codes
At least one missing discriminating variable
Both missing or out-of-range group codes and at least one missing
discriminating variable
Total
Total

Percent

154
74
31
11

57.0
27.4
11.5
4.1

116
270

43.0
100.0

Interpretation: The minimum ratio of valid cases to independent variables for discriminant analysis
is 5 to 1, with a preferred ratio of 20 to 1. In this analysis, there are 154 valid cases and 4
independent variables. The ratio of cases to independent variables is 38.5 to 1, which satisfies the
minimum requirement. In addition, the ratio of 38.5 to 1 satisfies the preferred ratio of 20 to 1. Now,
let us go to Prior Probabilities for Groups.

Group Statistics
Mean
SEEN THRILLER
MOVIE IN LAST YEAR
NO

YES

Total

Std.
Deviation

Valid N (listwise)
Unweighted Weighted

## AGE OF RESPONDENT 46.36

HIGHEST YEAR OF SCHOOL 13.42
COMPLETED
RESPONDENTS GENDER 1.67
TOTAL FAMILY INCOME 15.73
AGE OF RESPONDENT 39.19
HIGHEST YEAR OF SCHOOL 13.58
COMPLETED
RESPONDENTS GENDER 1.33
TOTAL FAMILY INCOME 16.60
AGE OF RESPONDENT 44.36
HIGHEST YEAR OF SCHOOL 13.47
COMPLETED
RESPONDENTS GENDER 1.57
TOTAL FAMILY INCOME 15.97

15.67
2.93

111
111

111.000
111.000

.47
5.42
14.86
2.84

111
111
43
43

111.000
111.000
43.000
43.000

.47
4.44
15.73
2.90

43 43.000
43 43.000
154 154.000
154 154.000

.50
5.16

154 154.000
154 154.000

Group Statistics
Mean
SEEN THRILLER
MOVIE IN LAST YEAR
NO

YES

Total

Std.
Deviation

Valid N (listwise)
Unweighted Weighted

## AGE OF RESPONDENT 46.36

HIGHEST YEAR OF SCHOOL 13.42
COMPLETED
RESPONDENTS GENDER 1.67
TOTAL FAMILY INCOME 15.73
AGE OF RESPONDENT 39.19
HIGHEST YEAR OF SCHOOL 13.58
COMPLETED
RESPONDENTS GENDER 1.33
TOTAL FAMILY INCOME 16.60
AGE OF RESPONDENT 44.36
HIGHEST YEAR OF SCHOOL 13.47
COMPLETED
RESPONDENTS GENDER 1.57
TOTAL FAMILY INCOME 15.97

15.67
2.93

111
111

111.000
111.000

.47
5.42
14.86
2.84

111
111
43
43

111.000
111.000
43.000
43.000

.47
4.44
15.73
2.90

43 43.000
43 43.000
154 154.000
154 154.000

.50
5.16

154 154.000
154 154.000

Interpretation: (i) The average "age" for survey respondents who had not seen a thriller movie in the
last year (mean=46.36) was higher than the average "age" for survey respondents who had seen a
thriller movie in the last year (mean=39.19).
So, survey respondents who had not seen a thriller movie in the last year were older than survey
respondents who had seen a thriller movie in the last year.
(ii) Since "gender" is a dichotomous variable, the mean is not directly interpretable. Its interpretation
must take into account the coding by which 1 corresponds to male and 2 corresponds to female. The
higher means (as compared to 1.57) for survey respondents who had not seen a thriller movie in the
last year (mean=1.67), when compared to the means for survey respondents who had seen an thriller
movie in the last year (mean=1.33), implies that the groups contained fewer survey respondents who
were male and more survey respondents who were female.
Survey respondents who had not seen a thriller movie in the last year were more likely to be female
than survey respondents who had seen a thriller movie in the last year. Let us now go to the next
table Tests of Equality of Group Means.
Tests of Equality of Group Means
Wilks' Lambda
F df1 df2 Sig.
AGE OF RESPONDENT
.958 6.684 1 152 .011
HIGHEST YEAR OF
.999
.091 1 152 .763
Interpretation: Interpretation: As we
SCHOOL COMPLETED
RESPONDENTS GENDER
.904 16.069 1 152 .000 know, Wilks' Lambda tests the extent
TOTAL FAMILY INCOME
.994
.889 1 152 .347 of equality of group means and their
statistical significance for
independent variables. In this case, we notice that gender and age have better values of Wilks'
lambda statistic with a probability of p<0.05 which depicted by the level of significance. Hence they
should be considered as good discriminatory independent variables.

However, this observation should be cross-validated from the structure matrix, as well. If the
structure matrix and this table are in similar lines, we can infer the discriminatory power of the
indep variables.

Analysis 1
Box's Test of Equality of Covariance Matrices
Log Determinants
SEEN THRILLER MOVIE IN LAST YEAR Rank
Log Determinant
NO
4
9.176
YES
4
8.573
Pooled within-groups
4
9.077
The ranks and natural logarithms of determinants printed are those of the group covariance matrices.
Test Results
Box's M
F

10.220
Approx.
.983
df1
10
df2
30348.624
Sig.
.455
Tests null hypothesis of equal population covariance matrices.

Interpretation: H0: the variance-covariance matrices of the two groups are the same in the population.
This is a test of variability. But this is an overall judgement of all the indep variables taken together
Boxs M
= 10.220
Approx. F
= 0.983
Conclusion: F-tab = FINV(0.05,10,30349) = 1.83. As calculated F is much lower than Tabular F, the
null hyp is accepted. This is also confirmed by the p-value. Therefore, we can conclude that group
homogeneity is present.

## Summary of Canonical Discriminant Functions

Eigenvalues
Function
Eigenvalue % of Variance Cumulative % Canonical Correlation
1
.169
100.0
100.0
.380
a First 1 canonical discriminant functions were used in the analysis.
Interpretation: There exists one Eigenvalue for one discriminant function. It depicts the relative discriminatory
power of the discriminant functions. For two groups, it hardly makes any sense, but in case there are more than
two groups, it allows to understand which function is better.

## What Is an Eigenvalue in MDA?

In the present example there are two groups, i.e., seen thriller movie last year = 1 and not seen
thriller movie last year=0. As we know, when there are two groups only one discriminant function can
be extracted from the data and its Eigenvalue () is interpreted as follows:
In simple language, in the two-group case, we can define Between Sum of Squares (i.e., Sum of
Squares Across Groups) as follows:

BSS z 0 z z1 z z j z
2

## Within Sum of Squares (WSS) can be given as follows:

WSS z i 0 z 0 z i1 z1 z ij z j
2

## TSS (Total Sum of Squares) = BSS + WSS

Eigenvalue is defined as:

BSS
. So, if = 0.00, the model has no discriminatory power (as BSS =
WSS

0). The larger the value of the greater the discriminatory power of the model.
Two groups can be separated by one discriminant function. Three groups require two discriminant
functions. The required number of functions is usually one less than the number of groups.
With 4 independent variables and 2 groups defined by the dependent variable, the maximum
possible number of discriminant functions was 1, which accounts for the 100% of variation by itself.
(cross-check this with the 3-group case)
The significance of the maximum possible number of discriminant functions supports the
interpretation of a solution using 1 discriminant function. Now let us go to Functions at Group
Centriods.
(III) Wilks' Lambda
Test of Wilks' Chi-square
Function(s) Lambda
.855
23.440

df

Sig.

.000

Interpretation: The overall relationship in discriminant analysis is based on the existence of sufficient
statistically significant discriminant functions to separate all of the groups defined by the dependent
variable. As we see, the observed Chi-square (23.440) does not fall within the critical region (as
=CHIINV(0.025,4) = 11.1433 and =CHIINV(0.975,4) = 0.484. The probability of p<0.001 [p(calculated)]
is also less than the level of significance of 0.05 [p(critical)].
Wilks Lambda is given as follows:

WSS
, which is nothing but the within group variation with
TSS

respect to the total variation. Hence, a lower value of this implies greater homogeneity within group,
which we will be happy to get. But, again, this is the overall Wilks Lambda, considering all the indep
variables together. Now, let us go to Group Centroids.

## Standardized Canonical Discriminant Function Coefficients

Function
1
AGE OF RESPONDENT
.610
HIGHEST YEAR OF SCHOOL COMPLETED
.138
RESPONDENTS GENDER
.849
TOTAL FAMILY INCOME
-.139
Interpretation: The function of these coefficients is to compare the relative importance of the indep variables.
So, we find that AGE and GENDER has relatively higher importance compared to EDUC and INCOME98

## Z = 0.610 age + 0.138 educ + 0.849 gender 0.139 income98

As the coefficients are standardized, the constant term is weaved with the model, & hence we dont
have one.
(V) Structure Matrix
Function
1
.791
.510
-.186
-.060

RESPONDENTS GENDER
AGE OF RESPONDENT
TOTAL FAMILY INCOME
HIGHEST YEAR OF SCHOOL
COMPLETED
Pooled within-groups correlations between discriminating variables and standardized canonical discriminant
functions Variables ordered by absolute size of correlation within function.
Interpretation: (i) We are interested in the role of the independent variable in predicting group
membership, i.e. are higher or lower scores on the independent variable associated with membership
in one group rather than the other?
This relationship can be stated as a comparison of the means of the groups defined by the dependent
variable.
In direct entry discriminant analysis, there is not a statistical test for each individual independent
variable. The interpretation that a variable is contributing to the discrimination of the groups defined
by the dependent variable is based on the loadings in the structure matrix.
We will use the rule of thumb that contributing variables have a loading +/-0.30 or higher on the
discriminant function. (This is very important, as it acts as a benchmark.) we did not discuss this im
class so please make a note of this.)
If an analysis has loadings higher than 0.30 on more that one function, we interpret the variable in
Based on the structure matrix, the independent variable age has a high enough loading (r=0.510) to
warrant interpretation as distinguishing between the groups differentiated by discriminant function,
i.e. between the group who had not seen a thriller movie and the group who had seen a thriller movie
in the last year. Let us now go to group statistics.
(ii) The largest loadings for "highest year of school completed" [educ] and total family income
[income98] in the structure matrix is less than 0.30. The variables are not interpreted because they
are not contributing to the discrimination of the groups. Let us now go back to Prior Probabilities for
Groups.
(iii) Based on the structure matrix, the independent variable gender has a high enough loading
(r=0.791) to warrant interpretation as distinguishing between the groups differentiated by
discriminant function, i.e., between the group who had not seen a thriller movie and the group who
had seen a thriller movie in the last year. Let us now go back to Group Statistics.
Though gender has a loading of 0.791, it is not considered as it is a binary variable. Had there been
nothing better, we would have considered it.

## (IV) Functions at Group Centroids

Function
SEEN THRILLER MOVIE IN LAST YEAR
1
NO
.254
YES
-.656
Unstandardized canonical discriminant functions evaluated at group means
Interpretation: Before we interpret the relationship between the independent variables and the
dependent variable, we need to identify which groups defined by the dependent variable are
differentiated by which discriminant function.
In a problem with only two groups, the solution is obvious, but we will see how to derive the answer
for more complicated groupings. You can compare this with the 3-group case (page: 22)
In order to specify the role that each independent variable plays in predicting group membership on
the dependent variable, we must link together the relationship between the discriminant functions
and the groups defined by the dependent variable, the role of the significant independent variables in
the discriminant functions, and the differences in group means for each of the variables.
Each function divides the groups into two subgroups by assigning negative values to one subgroup
and positive values to the other subgroup. Function 1 separates survey respondents who had seen a
thriller movie in the last year (-.656) from survey respondents who had not seen a thriller movie in
the last year (.254). Let us now go to the structure matrix.

Classification Statistics
Classification Processing Summary
Processed
270
Excluded
Missing or out-of-range group codes
0
At least one missing discriminating variable 42
Used in Output
228
(II) Prior Probabilities for Groups
Prior
SEEN THRILLER
MOVIE IN LAST YEAR
NO
YES
Total

.721
.279
1.000

## Cases Used in Analysis

Unweighted

Weighted

111
43
154

111.000
43.000
154.000

Interpretation: (i) In addition to the requirement for the ratio of cases to independent variables,
discriminant analysis requires that there be a minimum number of cases in the smallest group
defined by the dependent variable. The number of cases in the smallest group must be larger than
the number of independent variables, and preferably contains 20 or more cases.
The number of cases in the smallest group in this problem is 43, which is larger than the number of
independent variables (4), satisfying the minimum requirement. In addition, the number of cases in
the smallest group satisfies the preferred minimum of 20 cases.

(ii) The independent variables could be characterized as useful predictors of membership in the
groups defined by the dependent variable if the cross-validated classification accuracy rate was
significantly higher than the accuracy attainable by chance alone.
Operationally, the cross-validated classification accuracy rate should be 25% or higher than the
proportional by chance accuracy rate.
(iii) The proportional by chance accuracy rate was computed by squaring and summing the
proportion of cases in each group from the table of prior probabilities for groups (0.279 + 0.721 =
0.598).
The criteria (thumb-rule) for a useful model is 25% greater than the by chance accuracy rate (1.25 x
59.8% = 74.75%).
If the sample size did not initially satisfy the minimum requirements, discriminant analysis is not
appropriate. Let us now go to Classification Results.

Casewise Statistics
Actual
Group

Highest Group
Predicted
Group

## Second Highest Group

P(G=g | D=d)

P(D>d | G=g)

Case Number
Original

df

1
2

1
0

0
0

.206
.393

1
1

.552
.642

.601

.090

.388

.012

10

ungrouped

.056

11

.435

13

14

ungrouped

15

16
17

Squared
Group
Mahalanobis
Distance to
Centroid

P(G=g | D=d)

Squared
Mahalanobis
Distance to
Centroid

1.602
.730

1
1

.448
.358

.126
.003

.863

.273

.137

2.054

.948

2.877

.052

6.796

.563

.745

.437

3.147

.975

6.319

.025

11.727

.957

3.647

.043

7.955

.544

.610

.456

2.863

.374

.898

.791

.102

3.240

.836

.825

.043

.175

1.248

.069

.953

3.298

.047

7.436

ungrouped

.058

.957

3.601

.043

7.887

.938

.807

.006

.193

.976

18

ungrouped

.383

.565

.761

.435

3.179

19

.537

.690

.381

.310

.086

20

ungrouped

.302

.600

1.066

.400

3.776

21

.451

.538

.568

.462

2.771

22

ungrouped

.426

.548

.635

.452

2.916

23

.312

.908

1.024

.092

3.696

29

.964

.789

.002

.211

.749

30

ungrouped

.456

.885

.556

.115

2.745

31

.217

.559

1.525

.441

.105

32

.732

.741

.118

.259

.322

33

.898

.815

.016

.185

1.079

34

.783

.834

.076

.166

1.407

35

.359

.629

.842

.371

.000

36

.744

.840

.107

.160

1.531

39

.989

.798

.000

.202

.855

40

.915

.780

.011

.220

.646

41

.498

.879

.459

.121

2.523

42

.228

.566

1.452

.434

.086

43

.459

.535

.549

.465

2.729

44

ungrouped

.550

.503

.357

.497

2.274

45

.277

.612

1.179

.388

3.987

For the original data, squared Mahalanobis distance is based on canonical functions. For the cross-validated
data, squared Mahalanobis distance is based on observations.
** Misclassified case

a. Cross validation is done only for those cases in the analysis. In cross validation, each case is classified by the
functions derived from all cases other than that case.

Classification Results

Original

Crossvalidated

Count
NO
YES
Ungrouped cases
%
NO
YES
Ungrouped cases
Count
NO
%

## Predicted Group Membership

NO
99
29
60
89.2
67.4
81.1
99

YES
NO
YES

Total
YES
12
14
14
10.8
32.6
18.9
12

111
43
74
100.0
100.0
100.0
111

30
13
89.2 10.8
69.8 30.2

43
100.0
100.0

Classification Results
a. Cross validation is done only for those cases in the analysis. In cross validation, each case is classified by the
functions derived from all cases other than that case.
b. 73.4% of original grouped cases correctly classified.
c. 72.7% of cross-validated grouped cases correctly classified.
Interpretation: The proportional chance accuracy rate was computed by squaring and summing the
proportion of cases in each group from the table of prior probabilities for groups (0.279 + 0.721 =
0.598).
The criteria (thumb-rule) for a useful model is 25% greater than the by chance accuracy rate (1.25 x
59.8% = 74.75%). This should be ideally greater than or equal to proportional by chance accuracy
criterion. Here, we find it to be 72.7%, which is quite close. So, we can conclude that the criterion for
classification accuracy is satisfied.
Conclusions: The final question is a summary of the findings of the analysis: overall relationship, individual
relationships, and usefulness of the model.
Cautions are added, if needed, for sample size and level of measurement issues.
Age and gender were the two independent variables we identified as strong contributors to distinguishing
between the groups defined by the dependent variable.

The analysis identified the following specific relationships. Survey respondents who had not seen a
thriller movie in the last year were older than survey respondents who had seen a thriller movie in
the last year. Moreover, survey respondents who had not seen a thriller movie in the last year were
most likely to be female than survey respondents who had seen a thriller movie in the last year.

10

Stepwise case:
When stepwise method is used to enter predictor variables we can use Wilks Lambda criterion for
entry. Stepwise MDA identifies independent variables with lowest significant Wilks Lambda and enters
the model. At each step it is important to check whether the previous indep variables that entered in the
previous steps still have a significant .

Appendix

What is an Eigenvalue?
In matrix algebra, an eigenvalue is a constant, which if subtracted from the diagonal
elements of a matrix, results in a new matrix whose determinant equals zero.
An example
4
Given the matrix: A =
2

1
4 x

5
2

1
5 x

## Calculating the determinant of the matrix A:

( 4 - x) (5 - x) - (2) (1) = 0.0
(20 - 4x - 5x + x2 - 2) = 0.0
(18 - 9x + x2) = 0.0
(x2 - 9x + 18) = 0.0
This quadratic equation has two solutions or eigenvalues:

+ 6 and + 3

## Discriminant Analysis: Stepwise Entry

We will use discriminant analysis to evaluate the relationship between the dependent variable
opinion about spending on welfare [natfare] and the independent variables number of hours
worked in the past week [hrs1]; self-employment [wrkslf]; highest year of school completed [educ]; and
income [rincom98]. Like the previous method, stepwise regression also requires the dependent
variable to be non-metric and the indep variables be metric or dichotomous. The dependent variable
has three levels: 1=too little; 2=about right; 3=too much.
The procedure of ticking boxes/options remains the same expect clicking on Use stepwise method
instead of the earlier case of clicking Enter independents together.
Discriminant analysis is all about the existence of sufficiently statistically significant discriminant
functions to separate the groups defined by the dependent variable. In this case, we have 3 groups
defined about spending on welfare and 4 indep variables; so the maximum number of discriminant
functions are 2.

11

In order to specify the role that each independent variable plays in predicting group membership on
the dependent variable, we must link together the relationship between the discriminant functions
and the groups defined by the dependent variable, the role of the significant independent variables in
the discriminant functions, and the differences in group means for each of the variables

Discriminant
Analysis Case Processing Summary
Unweighte
N Percent
d Cases
Valid
138
51.1
Excluded
Missing or out-of-range group codes 7
2.6
At least one missing discriminating variable 115
42.6
Both missing or out-of-range group codes and at least one 10
3.7
missing discriminating variable
Total 132
48.9
Total
270 100.0
Interpretation: Preferred ratio of valid cases to independent variables is 20:1; in this case it is
138:4=34.5.
Group Statistics
WELFARE
TOO NUMBER OF HOURS WORKED LAST WEEK
LITTLE R SELF-EMP OR WORKS FOR SOMEBODY
HIGHEST YEAR OF SCHOOL COMPLETED
RESPONDENTS INCOME

## Mean Std. Deviation Valid N (listwise)

Unweighted Weighted
43.96
1.93
13.73
13.70

13.24
.26
2.40
5.03

56
56
56
56

56.000
56.000
56.000
56.000

## ABOUT NUMBER OF HOURS WORKED LAST WEEK

RIGHT R SELF-EMP OR WORKS FOR SOMEBODY
HIGHEST YEAR OF SCHOOL COMPLETED
RESPONDENTS INCOME

37.90
1.90
14.78
14.00

13.23
.30
2.56
5.50

50
50
50
50

50.000
50.000
50.000
50.000

## TOO NUMBER OF HOURS WORKED LAST WEEK

MUCH R SELF-EMP OR WORKS FOR SOMEBODY
HIGHEST YEAR OF SCHOOL COMPLETED
RESPONDENTS INCOME

42.03
1.75
13.38
14.75

10.46
.44
2.52
5.30

32
32
32
32

32.000
32.000
32.000
32.000

## Total NUMBER OF HOURS WORKED LAST WEEK

R SELF-EMP OR WORKS FOR SOMEBODY
HIGHEST YEAR OF SCHOOL COMPLETED
RESPONDENTS INCOME

41.32
1.88
14.03
14.05

12.85
.33
2.54
5.25

138
138
138
138

138.000
138.000
138.000
138.000

Interpretation: The average "number of hours worked in the past week" [HRS1] for survey respondents
who thought we spend about the right amount of money on welfare (mean=37.90) was lower than the
average HRS1 for survey respondents who thought we spend too little money on welfare
(mean=43.96) and survey respondents who thought we spend too much money on welfare
(mean=42.03).

12

This supports the relationship that survey respondents who thought we spend about the right
amount of money on welfare worked fewer hours in the past week than survey respondents who
thought we spend too little or too much money on welfare.
The second variable "self-employment" [wrkslf] is a dichotomous variable. Hence, the mean is not
directly interpretable. Its interpretation must take into account the coding by which 1 corresponds to
self-employed and 2 corresponds to working for someone else. The higher means for survey
respondents who thought we spend too little money on welfare (mean=1.93), when compared to the
means for survey respondents who thought we spend too much money on welfare (mean=1.75),
implies that the groups contained fewer survey respondents who were self-employed and more survey
respondents who were working for someone else.
The average "highest year of school completed" [educ] for survey respondents who thought we spend
about the right amount of money on welfare (mean=14.78) was higher than that of survey
respondents who thought we spend too little money on welfare (mean=13.73) and survey respondents
who thought we spend too much money on welfare (mean=13.38).

## Tests of Equality of Group Means

NUMBER OF HOURS WORKED LAST WEEK
R SELF-EMP OR WORKS FOR SOMEBODY
HIGHEST YEAR OF SCHOOL COMPLETED
RESPONDENTS INCOME

Wilks' Lambda
.956
.954
.947
.994

F
3.100
3.284
3.785
.411

df1
2
2
2
2

df2
135
135
135
135

Sig.
.048
.041
.025
.664

Interpretation: Note that =FINV(0.05,2,135) = 3.063. All the first 3 indpe variables have a Fobserved value, higher than this hence, the null hyp is rejected and they make a significant
contribution in discriminating the dep variable. Using the lowest Wilks Lambda for entry in stepwise
MDA, we find that HIGHEST YEAR OF SCHOOL COMPLETED has the lowest value, followed by R SELFEMP OR WORKS FOR SOMEBODY and NUMBER OF HOURS WORKED LAST WEEK. At this stage, we
find that RESPONDENTS INCOME has the highest Wilks Lambda insignificant, as well.

Analysis 1
Box's Test of Equality of Covariance Matrices
Log Determinants
WELFARE
Rank
Log Determinant
TOO LITTLE
3
4.145
3
4.629
TOO MUCH
3
4.748
Pooled within-groups
3
4.603
The ranks and natural logarithms of determinants printed are those of the group covariance matrices.
Test Results
Box's M
F
Approx.
df1

19.386
1.560
12

13

df2 53206.694
Sig.
.096
Tests null hypothesis of equal population covariance matrices.
Interpretation: As the F-observed lies below =FINV(0.05,12,53207) = 1.75, the null hyp is accepted, which is a
requirement by assumption.

Stepwise Statistics
Variables Entered/Removed
Statistic Between Groups

Min. D Squared
Exact F
Statistic df1
df2
Sig.
.475 1 135.000
.492

Step
Entered
1 NUMBER OF HOURS WORKED
.023 TOO LITTLE and
LAST WEEK
TOO MUCH
2 R SELF-EMP OR WORKS FOR
.251 TOO LITTLE and
3.289 2 134.000 4.031E-02
SOMEBODY
3 HIGHEST YEAR OF SCHOOL
.364 TOO LITTLE and
2.433 3 133.000 6.783E-02
COMPLETED
TOO MUCH
At each step, the variable that maximizes the Mahalanobis distance between the two closest groups is entered.
a Maximum number of steps is 8.
b Maximum significance of F to enter is .05.
c Minimum significance of F to remove is .10.
d F level, tolerance, or VIN insufficient for further computation.
Interpretation: As mentioned, [educ] has not been included in the list of the best subset of predictors
in the question.
We are interested to know whether higher/lower scores of the indep variables is associated with
membership with one group than the other. This can be taken up as a comparison of the means of
the groups defined by the dep variable.
In step 1, the variable that enters is HRS1 (number of hours worked in past week). From here, let us
go to structure matrix.
In step 2, the variable that enters is self-employment [workslf]. So, this can be called the sencond
best predictor. Now, let us go to the Structure Matrix.
The variable that entered and removed, "highest year of school completed" [educ] was added to the
discriminant analysis in step 3. Highest year of school completed can be characterized as the third
best predictor. Let us now go to the Structure Matrix.

Step
1
2

## NUMBER OF HOURS WORKED LAST

WEEK
NUMBER OF HOURS WORKED LAST
WEEK
R SELF-EMP OR WORKS FOR
SOMEBODY

Tolerance Sig. of F to
Min. D Between Groups
Remove Squared
1.000
.048
.986

.044

.986

.037

## .008 TOO LITTLE and

.023 TOO LITTLE and
TOO MUCH

14

## NUMBER OF HOURS WORKED LAST

WEEK
R SELF-EMP OR WORKS FOR
SOMEBODY
HIGHEST YEAR OF SCHOOL COMPLETED

.957

.017

.986

.040

.970

.010

## .184 TOO LITTLE and

.037 TOO LITTLE and
TOO MUCH
.251 TOO LITTLE and

Interpretation: Tolerance, if you remember, is the extent of variability of the selected independent variable NOT
explained by other indep variables. So, higher the tolerance, the better, in the sense that lower is the change of
problems like multicollinearity. But, as evident, as more and more indep variables enter using stepwise method,
Tolerance is bound to fall. As long as these are significant it is fine. As you will notice, the stringency of Sig. Of F
to remove is gradually relaxed as we move from step 1 to step 3.
Variables Not in the Analysis
Step
0

Tolerance

## NUMBER OF HOURS WORKED

LAST WEEK
R SELF-EMP OR WORKS FOR
SOMEBODY
HIGHEST YEAR OF SCHOOL
COMPLETED
RESPONDENTS INCOME

1.000

Min. Sig. of F
Min. D
Tolerance to Enter Squared
1.000
.048
.023

1.000

1.000

.041

.008

1.000

1.000

.025

.021

1.000

1.000

.664

.003

## R SELF-EMP OR WORKS FOR

SOMEBODY
HIGHEST YEAR OF SCHOOL
COMPLETED
RESPONDENTS INCOME

.986

.986

.037

.251

.970

.970

.009

.037

.862

.862

.332

.100

## HIGHEST YEAR OF SCHOOL

COMPLETED
RESPONDENTS INCOME

.970

.957

.010

.364

.840

.837

.200

.297

RESPONDENTS INCOME

.705

.705

.132

.521

Between Groups
TOO LITTLE and TOO
MUCH
RIGHT
TOO LITTLE and TOO
MUCH
RIGHT
RIGHT
TOO LITTLE and TOO
MUCH
TOO LITTLE and TOO
MUCH
TOO LITTLE and TOO
MUCH
MUCH
RIGHT

Wilks' Lambda
Number of
Step Variables
1
1
2
2
3
3

## Lambda df1 df2

.956
.910
.850

1
2
3

df3

2 135
2 135
2 135

Statistic
3.100
3.223
3.767

df1
2
4
6

Exact F
df2
Sig.
135.000 4.828E-02
268.000 1.319E-02
266.000 1.288E-03

Interpretation: This is the Wilks Lambda table for variables (and not functions) it shows that in all
the steps the variables entered have a p-value of less than 0.05 (i.e., Step 1 p-value=0.048; Step 2
p-value=0.013; and Step 3 p-value=0.001).

## Summary of Canonical Discriminant Functions

Eigenvalues
FunctionEigenvalue

% of Cumulativ Canonical

15

Variance
e % Correlation
1
.117
68.3
68.3
.323
2
.054
31.7
100.0
.227
a First 2 canonical discriminant functions were used in the analysis.
Interpretation: As we know, higher the Eigenvalue the better. The first Fn. Has a better Eigenvalue compared to
the second. % of variance explained between groups as compared to within groups is also seen to be higher in
the first case.
Wilks' Lambda
Test of Function(s) Wilks' Lambda Chi-square df Sig.
1 through 2
.850
21.853 6 .001
2
.949
7.074 2 .029
Interpretation: Wilks Lambda, which tests discriminant functions statistical significance, has
identified 2 discriminant functions both with p-value less than 0.05.
Standardized Canonical Discriminant Function Coefficients
Function
1
2
NUMBER OF HOURS WORKED LAST WEEK
-.704 .444
R SELF-EMP OR WORKS FOR SOMEBODY
.149 .942
HIGHEST YEAR OF SCHOOL COMPLETED
.810 .070
Structure Matrix
Function
1
2
HIGHEST YEAR OF SCHOOL COMPLETED
.687
.136
NUMBER OF HOURS WORKED LAST WEEK
-.582
.345
R SELF-EMP OR WORKS FOR SOMEBODY
.223
.889
RESPONDENTS INCOME
.101
.292
Pooled within-groups correlations between discriminating variables and standardized canonical discriminant
functions Variables ordered by absolute size of correlation within function.
* Largest absolute correlation between each variable and any discriminant function
a This variable not used in the analysis.
Interpretation: Here we see that HRS1 has the largest loading in discr function 1, which differentiates
survey respondents who thought we spend about the right amount of money on welfare from who
thought we spend too little or too much money on welfare. From here let us go to Group Statistics.

For the entry of the second variable, i.e., workslf, the largest loading was 0.889 on discriminant
function 2. This discriminates survey respondents who thought we spend too little money on welfare
from who thought we spend too much money on welfare. Now, let us again go to Group Statistics.

In the structure matrix, the largest loading for the variable "highest year of school completed" [educ]
was .687 on discriminant function 1 which differentiates survey respondents who thought we spend
about the right amount of money on welfare from who thought we spend too little or too much money
on welfare. Let us now go to Group Statistics.

16

## Functions at Group Centroids

Function
WELFARE
1
2
TOO LITTLE
-.220
.235
.446 -3.150E-02
TOO MUCH
-.311
-.362
Unstandardized canonical discriminant functions evaluated at group means
Interpretation: The values at group centroids for the first discriminant function were positive for the
group who thought we spend about the right amount of money on welfare (.446) and negative for
groups who thought we spend too little (-.220) or too much (-.311) money on welfare. This pattern
clearly distinguishes survey respondents who thought we spend about the right amount of money on
welfare from the other survey respondents.
The values at group centroids for the second discriminant function were positive for the group who
thought we spend too little money on welfare (.235) and negative for group who thought we spend too
much money on welfare (-.362). This pattern distinguishes survey respondents who thought we
spend too little money on welfare from survey respondents who thought we spend too much money
on welfare.

Classification Statistics
Classification Processing Summary
Processed
Excluded
Missing or out-of-range group codes
At least one missing discriminating variable
Used in Output

270
0
100
170

WELFARE
TOO LITTLE
TOO MUCH
Total

## Prior Cases Used in Analysis

Unweighted
.406
56
.362
50
.232
32
1.000
138

Weighted
56.000
50.000
32.000
138.000

Interpretation: The minimum number of cases per indep variable is fulfilled with the minimum cases
being 32.
The independent variables could be characterized as useful predictors of membership in the groups
defined by the dependent variable if the cross-validated classification accuracy rate was significantly
higher than the accuracy attainable by chance alone.
Operationally, the cross-validated classification accuracy rate should be 25% or more higher than the
proportional by chance accuracy rate.

17

The proportional by chance accuracy rate was computed by squaring and summing the proportion of
cases in each group from the table of prior probabilities for groups (0.406 + 0.362 + 0.232 = 0.350,
or 35.0%).
The proportional by chance accuracy criteria was 43.7% (1.25 x 35.0% = 43.7%). Now, let us go to
Classification Results.

18

Casewise Statistics
Highest Group
Predicted
Group

P(D>d |
G=g)

P(G=g | D=d)

## Second Highest Group

Discriminant Scores

## Squared Group P(G=g | D=d) Squared Function 1 Function 2

Mahalanob
Mahalanob
is Distance
is Distance
to Centroid
to Centroid

Actual
Case
Group
Number
p df
Original
1
2
2
.662 2
.484
.826
1
.393
1.473
.867
.774
2
2
2
.233 2
.691
2.917
1
.232
5.331
2.076
.479
5
1
2
.738 2
.535
.607
1
.336
1.764
1.098
.395
6
1
1
.280 2
.636
2.549
3
.224
3.514
-1.645
.956
8
2
2
.950 2
.445
.103
1
.387
.606
.558
.269
12
3
1
.953 2
.490
.097
2
.273
1.036
-.531
.254
13
1
1
.680 2
.559
.772
3
.235
1.388
-1.032
.570
14
1
1
.953 2
.490
.097
2
.273
1.036
-.531
.254
42
1
1
.941 2
.437
.122
2
.371
.223
.120
.311
43
3
1
.272 2
.660
2.603
3
.187
4.007
-1.438
1.293
44
2
1
.970 2
.472
.061
2
.333
.533
-.102
.451
45
1
1
.447 2
.602
1.611
3
.230
2.418
-1.366
.781
47
2
1
.999 2
.465
.003
2
.320
.523
-.205
.283
48
2
1
.987 2
.449
.025
2
.316
.500
-.253
.079
49
1
1
.738 2
.565
.607
2
.239
2.100
-.715
.837
50 ungrouped
3
.000 2
.818
16.603
1
.127
21.444
-2.531
-3.778
51
3
2
.165 2
.482
3.598
3
.315
3.556
.782
-1.898
53
1
2
.535 2
.539
1.253
1
.355
2.319
1.193
.802
For the original data, squared Mahalanobis distance is based on canonical functions. For the cross-validated data, squared Mahalanobis distance is
based on observations.
** Misclassified case
a Cross validation is done only for those cases in the analysis. In cross validation, each case is classified by the functions derived from all cases other
than that case.

19

## Canonical Discriminant Functions

2

1
TOO LITTLE
TOO MUCH

WELFARE

-1

Group Centroids

Function 2

-2

Ungrouped Cases
TOO MUCH

-3
-4

TOO LITTLE
-3

-2

-1

Function 1
Classification Results
Predicted Group
Membership
LITTLE RIGHT MUCH

WELFARE
Total
TOO LITTLE
43
15
6
64
26
30
6
62
TOO MUCH
17
10
9
36
Ungrouped cases
3
3
2
8
%
TOO LITTLE
67.2
23.4
9.4 100.0
41.9
48.4
9.7 100.0
TOO MUCH
47.2
27.8
25.0 100.0
Ungrouped cases
37.5
37.5
25.0 100.0
Cross-validated Count
TOO LITTLE
43
15
6
64
26
30
6
62
TOO MUCH
17
11
8
36
%
TOO LITTLE
67.2
23.4
9.4 100.0
41.9
48.4
9.7 100.0
TOO MUCH
47.2
30.6
22.2 100.0
a Cross validation is done only for those cases in the analysis. In cross validation, each case is classified by
the functions derived from all cases other than that case.
b 50.6% of original grouped cases correctly classified.
c 50.0% of cross-validated grouped cases correctly classified.
Original Count

20

Interpretation: The cross-validated accuracy rate computed by SPSS was 50.0% which was greater
than or equal to the proportional by chance accuracy criteria of 43.7% (1.25 x 35.0% = 43.7%). The
criteria for classification accuracy is satisfied.
Conclusion: Hours worked, self-employment, and education were the three independent variables we
identified as strong contributors to distinguishing between the groups defined by the dependent
variable.
The model was characterized as useful because it equaled the by chance accuracy criterion.
The summary correctly states the specific relationships between the dependent variable groups and
the independent variables we interpreted.
Survey respondents who thought we spend about the right amount of money on welfare worked fewer
hours in the past week than survey respondents who thought we spend too little or too much money
on welfare. Survey respondents who thought we spend too little money on welfare were less likely to
be self-employed than survey respondents who feel we spend too much money on welfare. Survey
respondents who thought we spend about the right amount of money on welfare had completed more
years of school than survey respondents who thought we spend too little or too much money on
welfare.

Question:

## Variables included in the analysis satisfy the level of measurement requirements?

Dependent non-metric?
Independent variables
metric or dichotomous?

Inappropriate
application of a
statistic

No

Yes

## Ordinal independent variable

included in analysis?

Yes

No
True

21

Question:

## Run discriminant analysis, using method for including

variables identified in the research question.

Ratio of cases to
independent variables at
least 5 to 1?

Yes
Satisfies preferred
Yes
ratio of cases
to IV's
of
20
to
1
Number of cases in
smallest group greater
than number of independent
variables?

Inappropriate
application of a
statistic

No

No
No

Inappropriate
application of a
statistic

Yes

Satisfies preferred DV
group minimum size
of 20 cases?

No

Yes

## Sufficient statistically significant functions to differentiate among groups?

True

Sufficient statistically
significant functions to
distinguish DV groups?

No

False

Yes

## Caution for ordinal variable

or sample size not meeting
preferred requirements?

No
True

Yes
True with caution

22

## Interpretation of relationship between independent variable and dependent variable groups?

Stepwise method of
entry used to include
independent variables?

No

Yes
Best subset of
predictors correctly
identified?

Yes
No

Relationships between
individual IVs and DV
groups interpreted
correctly?

## Caution for ordinal variable

or sample size not meeting
preferred requirements?

False

No

False

Yes

No
True
Yes

## Classification accuracy sufficient to be characterized as a useful model?

Cross-validated accuracy is
25% higher than proportional
by chance accuracy rate?

Yes

No
23

## Overall relationship correctly

stated (significant function)?

No

Yes

## Individual relationship with IV

and DV correctly stated?

No

Yes

## Caution for ordinal variable or

sample size not meeting
preferred requirements?

Classification accuracy
supports useful model?

No
Yes

No
Yes
True
Tests of Equality of Group Means
Wilks' Lambda
F df1 df2 Sig.
AGE OF RESPONDENT
.958 6.684 1 152 .011
HIGHEST YEAR OF
.999
.091 1 152 .763
SCHOOL COMPLETED
RESPONDENTS GENDER
.904 16.069 1 152 .000
TOTAL FAMILY INCOME
.994
.889 1 152 .347

Analysis 1
Box's Test of Equality of
Covariance Matrices

Log Determinants
SEEN THRILLER MOVIE IN LAST YEAR Rank
Log Determinant
NO
4
9.176
YES
4
8.573
Pooled within-groups
4
9.077
The ranks and natural logarithms of determinants printed are those of the group covariance matrices.
Test Results
Box's M
F

Approx.
df1
df2

10.220
.983
10
30348.624

24

Sig.
.455
Tests null hypothesis of equal population covariance matrices.
Interpretation: This is a test of variability, as mentioned above. But this is an overall judgement of all
the indep variables taken together.
Boxs M
= 10.220
Approx. F
= 0.983
Conclusion: F-tab = FINV(0.05,10,30349) = 1.83. As calculated F is much lower than Tabular F, the
null hyp is accepted. This is also confirmed by the p-value. Therefore, we can conclude that group
homogeneity is present.

## Summary of Canonical Discriminant Functions

Eigenvalues
Function
Eigenvalue % of Variance Cumulative % Canonical Correlation
1
.169
100.0
100.0
.380
a First 1 canonical discriminant functions were used in the analysis.
Interpretation: There exists one Eigenvalue for one discriminant function. It depicts the relative discriminatory
power of the discriminant functions. For two groups, it hardly makes any sense, but in case there are more than
two groups, it allows to understand which function is better.

## What Is an Eigenvalue in MDA?

In the present example there are two groups, i.e., seen thriller movie last year = 1 and not seen
thriller movie last year=0. As we know, when there are two groups only one discriminant function can
be extracted from the data and its Eigenvalue () is interpreted as follows:
In simple language, in the two-group case, we can define Between Sum of Squares (i.e., Sum of
Squares Across Groups) as follows:

BSS z 0 z z1 z z j z
2

## Within Sum of Squares (WSS) can be given as follows:

WSS z i 0 z 0 z i1 z1 z ij z j
2

## TSS (Total Sum of Squares) = BSS + WSS

Eigenvalue is defined as:

BSS
. So, if = 0.00, the model has no discriminatory power (as BSS =
WSS

0). The larger the value of the greater the discriminatory power of the model.
Two groups can be separated by one discriminant function. Three groups require two discriminant
functions. The required number of functions is usually one less than the number of groups.
With 4 independent variables and 2 groups defined by the dependent variable, the maximum
possible number of discriminant functions was 1, which accounts for the 100% of variation by itself.
(cross-check this with the 3-group case)

25

The significance of the maximum possible number of discriminant functions supports the
interpretation of a solution using 1 discriminant function. Now let us go to Functions at Group
Centriods.
(III) Wilks' Lambda
Test of Wilks' Chi-square
Function(s) Lambda
.855
23.440

df

Sig.

.000

Interpretation: The overall relationship in discriminant analysis is based on the existence of sufficient
statistically significant discriminant functions to separate all of the groups defined by the dependent
variable. As we see, the observed Chi-square (23.440) does not fall within the critical region (as
=CHIINV(0.025,4) = 11.1433 and =CHIINV(0.975,4) = 0.484. The probability of p<0.001 [p(calculated)]
is also less than the level of significance of 0.05 [p(critical)].
Wilks Lambda is given as follows:

WSS
, which is nothing but the within group variation with
TSS

respect to the total variation. Hence, a lower value of this implies greater homogeneity within group,
which we will be happy to get. But, again, this is the overall Wilks Lambda, considering all the indep
variables together. Now, let us go to Group Centroids.

## Standardized Canonical Discriminant Function Coefficients

Function
1
AGE OF RESPONDENT
.610
HIGHEST YEAR OF SCHOOL COMPLETED
.138
RESPONDENTS GENDER
.849
TOTAL FAMILY INCOME
-.139
(V) Structure Matrix
Function
1
.791
.510
-.186
-.060

RESPONDENTS GENDER
AGE OF RESPONDENT
TOTAL FAMILY INCOME
HIGHEST YEAR OF SCHOOL
COMPLETED
Pooled within-groups correlations between discriminating variables and standardized canonical discriminant
functions Variables ordered by absolute size of correlation within function.
(IV) Functions at Group Centroids
Function
SEEN THRILLER MOVIE IN LAST YEAR
1
NO
.254
YES
-.656
Unstandardized canonical discriminant functions evaluated at group means

Classification Statistics
Classification Processing Summary
Processed

270

26

Excluded

## Missing or out-of-range group codes

At least one missing discriminating variable

Used in Output
(II) Prior Probabilities for Groups
Prior
SEEN THRILLER
MOVIE IN LAST YEAR
NO
YES
Total

.721
.279
1.000

0
42
228

## Cases Used in Analysis

Unweighted

Weighted

111
43
154

111.000
43.000
154.000

Interpretation: (i) In addition to the requirement for the ratio of cases to independent variables,
discriminant analysis requires that there be a minimum number of cases in the smallest group
defined by the dependent variable. The number of cases in the smallest group must be larger than
the number of independent variables, and preferably contains 20 or more cases.
The number of cases in the smallest group in this problem is 43, which is larger than the number of
independent variables (4), satisfying the minimum requirement. In addition, the number of cases in
the smallest group satisfies the preferred minimum of 20 cases. Now we go to Wilks Lambda.

27

Casewise Statistics
Actual
Group

Highest Group
Predicted
Group

P(D>d | G=g)

## Second Highest Group

P(G=g | D=d)

Case Number
Original

df

1
2

1
0

0
0

.206
.393

1
1

.552
.642

.601

.090

.388

Squared
Group
Mahalanobis
Distance to
Centroid

P(G=g | D=d)

Squared
Mahalanobis
Distance to
Centroid

1.602
.730

1
1

.448
.358

.126
.003

.863

.273

.137

2.054

.948

2.877

.052

6.796

.563

.745

.437

3.147

.012

.975

6.319

.025

11.727

10

ungrouped

.056

.957

3.647

.043

7.955

11

.435

.544

.610

.456

2.863

13

.374

.898

.791

.102

3.240

14

ungrouped

.836

.825

.043

.175

1.248

15

.069

.953

3.298

.047

7.436

16

ungrouped

.058

.957

3.601

.043

7.887

17

.938

.807

.006

.193

.976

18

ungrouped

.383

.565

.761

.435

3.179

19

.537

.690

.381

.310

.086

20

ungrouped

.302

.600

1.066

.400

3.776

21

.451

.538

.568

.462

2.771

22

ungrouped

.426

.548

.635

.452

2.916

23

.312

.908

1.024

.092

3.696

29

.964

.789

.002

.211

.749

30

ungrouped

.456

.885

.556

.115

2.745

31

.217

.559

1.525

.441

.105

32

.732

.741

.118

.259

.322

33

.898

.815

.016

.185

1.079

34

.783

.834

.076

.166

1.407

35

.359

.629

.842

.371

.000

36

.744

.840

.107

.160

1.531

39

.989

.798

.000

.202

.855

40

.915

.780

.011

.220

.646

41

.498

.879

.459

.121

2.523

42

.228

.566

1.452

.434

.086

43

.459

.535

.549

.465

2.729

44

ungrouped

.550

.503

.357

.497

2.274

45

.277

.612

1.179

.388

3.987

For the original data, squared Mahalanobis distance is based on canonical functions. For the cross-validated
data, squared Mahalanobis distance is based on observations.
** Misclassified case
a Cross validation is done only for those cases in the analysis. In cross validation, each case is classified by the
functions derived from all cases other than that case.

28

Classification Results

Original

Crossvalidated

Count
NO
YES
Ungrouped cases
%
NO
YES
Ungrouped cases
Count
NO

## Predicted Group Membership

NO
99
29
60
89.2
67.4
81.1
99

YES
NO
YES

Total
YES
12
14
14
10.8
32.6
18.9
12

111
43
74
100.0
100.0
100.0
111

30
13
89.2 10.8
69.8 30.2

43
100.0
100.0

Classification Results
a Cross validation is done only for those cases in the analysis. In cross validation, each case is classified by the
functions derived from all cases other than that case.
b 73.4% of original grouped cases correctly classified.
c 72.7% of cross-validated grouped cases correctly classified.

Question:

## Variables included in the analysis satisfy the level of measurement requirements?

Dependent non-metric?
Independent variables
metric or dichotomous?

Inappropriate
application of a
statistic

No

Yes

## Ordinal independent variable

included in analysis?

Yes

No
True

29

Question:

## Run discriminant analysis, using method for including

variables identified in the research question.

Ratio of cases to
independent variables at
least 5 to 1?

Yes
Satisfies preferred
Yes
ratio of cases
to IV's
of
20
to
1
Number of cases in
smallest group greater
than number of independent
variables?

Inappropriate
application of a
statistic

No

No
No

Inappropriate
application of a
statistic

Yes

Satisfies preferred DV
group minimum size
of 20 cases?

No

Yes

## Sufficient statistically significant functions to differentiate among groups?

True

Sufficient statistically
significant functions to
distinguish DV groups?

No

False

Yes

## Caution for ordinal variable

or sample size not meeting
preferred requirements?

No
True

Yes
True with caution

30

## Interpretation of relationship between independent variable and dependent variable groups?

Stepwise method of
entry used to include
independent variables?

No

Yes
Best subset of
predictors correctly
identified?

Yes
No

Relationships between
individual IVs and DV
groups interpreted
correctly?

## Caution for ordinal variable

or sample size not meeting
preferred requirements?

False

No

False

Yes

No
True
Yes

## Classification accuracy sufficient to be characterized as a useful model?

Cross-validated accuracy is
25% higher than proportional
by chance accuracy rate?

Yes

No
31

## Overall relationship correctly

stated (significant function)?

No

Yes

## Individual relationship with IV

and DV correctly stated?

No

Yes

## Caution for ordinal variable or

sample size not meeting
preferred requirements?

Classification accuracy
supports useful model?

No
Yes

No
Yes
True

32