IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Objective Bayesian comparison of order-constrained models in contingency tables


  • Roberta Paroli

    () (Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore)

  • Guido Consonni

    () (Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore)


In social and biomedical sciences, testing in contingency tables often involves order restrictions on cell probabilities parameters. We develop objective Bayes methods for order-constrained testing and model comparison when observations arise under product binomial or multinomial sampling. Specifically, we consider tests for monotone order of the parameters against equality of all parameters. Our strategy combines in a unified way both the intrinsic prior methodology and the encompassing prior approach in order to compute Bayes factors and posterior model probabilities. Performance of our method is evaluated on several simulation studies and real datasets.

Suggested Citation

  • Roberta Paroli & Guido Consonni, 2020. "Objective Bayesian comparison of order-constrained models in contingency tables," TEST: An Official Journal of the Spanish Society of Statistics and Operations Research, Springer;Sociedad de Estadística e Investigación Operativa, vol. 29(1), pages 139-165, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:testjl:v:29:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1007_s11749-019-00650-w
    DOI: 10.1007/s11749-019-00650-w

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Consonni, Guido & La Rocca, Luca, 2008. "Tests Based on Intrinsic Priors for the Equality of Two Correlated Proportions," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 103(483), pages 1260-1269.
    2. Valen E. Johnson & Richard D. Payne & Tianying Wang & Alex Asher & Soutrik Mandal, 2017. "On the Reproducibility of Psychological Science," Journal of the American Statistical Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 112(517), pages 1-10, January.
    3. Wetzels, Ruud & Grasman, Raoul P.P.P. & Wagenmakers, Eric-Jan, 2010. "An encompassing prior generalization of the Savage-Dickey density ratio," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 54(9), pages 2094-2102, September.
    4. Guido Consonni & Elias Moreno & Sergio Venturini, 2010. "Testing Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium: an Objective Bayesian Analysis," Quaderni di Dipartimento 121, University of Pavia, Department of Economics and Quantitative Methods.
    5. Klugkist, Irene & Hoijtink, Herbert, 2007. "The Bayes factor for inequality and about equality constrained models," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 51(12), pages 6367-6379, August.
    6. Guido Consonni & Roberta Paroli, 2017. "Objective Bayesian Comparison of Constrained Analysis of Variance Models," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 82(3), pages 589-609, September.
    7. Ronald L. Wasserstein & Nicole A. Lazar, 2016. "The ASA's Statement on p -Values: Context, Process, and Purpose," The American Statistician, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 70(2), pages 129-133, May.
    8. Mulder, Joris, 2014. "Prior adjusted default Bayes factors for testing (in)equality constrained hypotheses," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 448-463.
    9. Casella, George & Moreno, Elías, 2009. "Assessing Robustness of Intrinsic Tests of Independence in Two-Way Contingency Tables," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 104(487), pages 1261-1271.
    10. G. Iliopoulos & M. Kateri & I. Ntzoufras, 2009. "Bayesian Model Comparison for the Order Restricted RC Association Model," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 74(4), pages 561-587, December.
    11. M. J. Bayarri & G. García‐Donato, 2008. "Generalization of Jeffreys divergence‐based priors for Bayesian hypothesis testing," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 70(5), pages 981-1003, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:testjl:v:29:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1007_s11749-019-00650-w. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Sonal Shukla) or (Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing). General contact details of provider: .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.