Learning goals
You will learn to:
build a contingency table;
compare counts and row percentages;
use the chi-square test of independence;
inspect expected cell counts;
distinguish association from direction, magnitude, and causality.
Management question: Is managerial status associated with department, or is the observed distribution compatible with independence?
library ( tidyverse )
employees <- read_csv (
"data/employee_survey.csv" ,
show_col_types = FALSE
)
manager_department <- table (
employees $ manager ,
employees $ department
)
manager_department
Finance HR Marketing Operations Technology
No 70 41 70 97 67
Yes 27 13 30 28 37
Finance HR Marketing Operations Technology
No 0.2028986 0.1188406 0.2028986 0.2811594 0.1942029
Yes 0.2000000 0.0962963 0.2222222 0.2074074 0.2740741
Run the test:
chi_result <- chisq.test ( manager_department )
chi_result
Pearson's Chi-squared test
data: manager_department
X-squared = 5.4999, df = 4, p-value = 0.2397
Finance HR Marketing Operations Technology
No 69.71875 38.8125 71.875 89.84375 74.75
Yes 27.28125 15.1875 28.125 35.15625 29.25
The chi-square test compares observed counts with the counts expected if the two categorical variables were independent.
A statistically detectable chi-square association does not tell you the mechanism, direction of causality, or managerial importance. Examine the pattern of percentages and, when appropriate, an effect size such as Cramér’s V.
Optional effect size:
Cramer's V (adj.) | 95% CI
--------------------------------
0.06 | [0.00, 1.00]
- One-sided CIs: upper bound fixed at [1.00].
Practice
Test manager by department.
Report row percentages.
Inspect expected counts.
Calculate Cramér’s V.
Write one sentence describing association without causal language.
Takeaway
For categorical variables, start with counts and proportions. The chi-square statistic is one part of the substantive interpretation.