Why does Chi-square formula have two different ones?

  • Thread starter Thread starter EigenCake
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Formula
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the two different Chi-square formulas found in various sources. One formula is derived from the definition of the Chi-squared distribution, while the other applies it to observed versus expected frequencies. The first reference explains the distribution of a random variable formed from squared standard-normal variables. The second reference suggests using the formula (O-E)^2/E for goodness of fit tests to evaluate the null hypothesis. Ultimately, the second formula is recommended for practical applications in hypothesis testing.
EigenCake
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
One is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chi-squared_distribution

where at the bottom of the page, chi-square = sum of something devided by variance.

However, here:
http://www.napce.org/documents/research-design-yount/23_chisq_4th.pdf

where the chi-square formula is that the sum of the same thing devided by expectation value.

Which formula is right then?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
The first reference is the definition of Chi-squared :- the distribution of a RV formed from the sum of squared standard-normal random variables.

The second reference is an application of the above distribution to the case of expect versus observed frequencies, where (O-E)/sqrt(E) is asymptotically standard-normal and hence (O-E)^2/E is asymptotically Chi-squared.
 
Thanks!

It seems that for goodness of fit I should use the second formula to either reject or accept the null hypothesis, rather than use the first formula.
 
If there are an infinite number of natural numbers, and an infinite number of fractions in between any two natural numbers, and an infinite number of fractions in between any two of those fractions, and an infinite number of fractions in between any two of those fractions, and an infinite number of fractions in between any two of those fractions, and... then that must mean that there are not only infinite infinities, but an infinite number of those infinities. and an infinite number of those...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
9K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
10K