ML Interview Q Series: When would you use chi-Square or an ANOVA test?
📚 Browse the full ML Interview series here.
Comprehensive Explanation
chi-Square tests and ANOVA are both statistical tools used to understand whether observed data fits certain expected distributions (in the case of chi-Square) or to compare mean values across multiple groups (in the case of ANOVA). Each test has distinct assumptions, use cases, and interpretations.
chi-Square Test Overview
A chi-Square test is used primarily for categorical data. One of the most common forms is the chi-Square test of independence, which checks whether two categorical variables are related or independent. Another form is the chi-Square goodness-of-fit test, which examines whether observed frequency counts of a single categorical variable conform to some theoretical expectation.
A core formula for the chi-Square statistic for a typical goodness-of-fit scenario is
Here, k is the number of categories, O_i is the observed frequency count in category i, and E_i is the expected frequency count in category i under the null hypothesis. The chi-Square value is used with a chi-Square distribution to determine the p-value, which indicates whether the differences between observed and expected counts are statistically significant.
Typical scenarios where you would use a chi-Square test:
Testing whether two categorical variables (e.g., gender and preference for a product) are independent.
Checking if observed counts in categories (e.g., the distribution of dice rolls) match an expected distribution (like a fair dice assumption).
ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) Overview
ANOVA is used when comparing the means of three or more groups to see if at least one group mean is significantly different from the others. For example, you might compare the effectiveness of three different teaching methods on test scores to see if one method yields significantly higher (or lower) average scores than the others.
A central piece of ANOVA is the F-statistic. In a one-way ANOVA, the F-statistic is computed as the ratio of the variance between group means to the variance within the groups:
MSB is the mean square between groups, and MSW is the mean square within groups. MSB captures how much variation exists between the different group means, while MSW captures how much variation there is within each group. Under the null hypothesis that all groups have the same true mean, the F-statistic will typically follow an F-distribution, and from that distribution you derive the p-value.
You would use ANOVA when:
You have a continuous response variable (e.g., numerical measurements).
You have a categorical explanatory variable with three or more levels (e.g., different experimental conditions).
You want to test if at least one group’s mean differs significantly from the others.
Distinguishing Use Cases
chi-Square:
Data is categorical.
Typical question: “Are these two categorical variables associated?” or “Does the observed frequency match the expected frequency?”
ANOVA:
Data is continuous for the outcome variable.
Goal is to compare more than two group means (though you can use ANOVA for two groups as well, but a t-test is simpler in that case).
Typical question: “Is there a difference in means across multiple groups?”
In practice, sometimes you might need to decide between a chi-Square test and ANOVA if you are analyzing data that can be configured either way (for example, categorizing continuous measurements into bins vs. keeping them as numeric values). In most real-world cases, though, the nature of the data (categorical vs. continuous) guides you directly to chi-Square vs. ANOVA.
Common Follow-up Questions
What are the key assumptions for a chi-Square test?
A chi-Square test assumes that:
The data in each cell or category are counts or frequencies, not percentages or proportions directly.
Observations are independent. This typically means each sample or subject contributes to only one cell of the contingency table.
Expected cell frequencies are not too small. A common rule of thumb is that each expected frequency should be at least 5 for the test results to be reliable (though in practice, some sources are flexible with smaller frequencies if at least the majority of cells have expected counts of 5 or more).
When these assumptions are violated, the results of the chi-Square test might be inaccurate. For small counts, alternatives like Fisher’s exact test or combining categories can be used.
When is a one-way ANOVA used versus a repeated-measures ANOVA?
A one-way ANOVA is used when you have:
One factor (categorical variable) with multiple levels (groups).
Independent samples in each group (i.e., different participants in each group).
A repeated-measures ANOVA is used when:
The same subjects are measured under multiple conditions or time points.
The repeated nature of the measurements introduces correlations within each subject’s observations, and a repeated-measures ANOVA specifically accounts for that correlation structure.
What are the assumptions behind ANOVA, and what if they are violated?
ANOVA has several main assumptions:
Residuals (errors) are normally distributed for each group.
Homogeneity of variance across groups (the variance in each group is assumed to be roughly equal).
Observations are independent within each group.
If any of these assumptions are violated:
For lack of normality, you might consider a non-parametric alternative (such as the Kruskal–Wallis test).
For unequal variances, you might apply a Welch’s ANOVA (a version of ANOVA that does not assume equal variances).
For dependent or paired measurements, you would consider a repeated-measures design.
How is the F-statistic derived in ANOVA, and what does it represent?
The F-statistic is derived by partitioning the total variability of the data into “between-group variability” and “within-group variability.” Specifically, you calculate:
Between-group sum of squares (SSB) by measuring how far each group mean is from the overall mean, then weighting by sample sizes.
Within-group sum of squares (SSW) by summing the squared deviations of each data point from its respective group mean.
Mean square between (MSB) = SSB / (g - 1) where g is the number of groups.
Mean square within (MSW) = SSW / (N - g) where N is the total number of observations across all groups.
F = MSB / MSW.
It represents a ratio: If the between-group variance is significantly larger than the within-group variance, the F-statistic becomes large, indicating a higher likelihood of at least one group mean differing from the others in a statistically significant way.
When do you use post-hoc tests in ANOVA?
After finding a significant overall F-test in ANOVA (meaning you reject the null hypothesis that all group means are the same), you often need to pinpoint which specific group means differ. Post-hoc tests (such as Tukey’s HSD, Bonferroni correction, or Scheffé’s method) control for the increased type I error rate that arises from conducting multiple comparisons.
What about interpreting p-values in these tests?
For both chi-Square and ANOVA, once you compute the test statistic, you compare it to a corresponding distribution (chi-Square distribution for chi-Square tests, F-distribution for ANOVA) to get the p-value:
A small p-value suggests there is enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis (e.g., for chi-Square: “The categories are not independent” or “Observed frequencies differ from expected frequencies”; for ANOVA: “At least one group mean differs”).
A large p-value means you do not have enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis.
In practice, you also check confidence intervals and effect sizes to better interpret the practical significance of your results rather than relying purely on p-values.
Below are additional follow-up questions
How can I handle ordinal data? Should I use a chi-Square test or is there another approach for ordinal variables?
Ordinal data occupies a middle ground between purely categorical (nominal) and purely continuous data. A chi-Square test can be used on ordinal variables if they are treated simply as categorical with distinct categories. However, doing this may ignore the inherent “order” in the data. For instance, a satisfaction rating (e.g., “Very Unsatisfied,” “Unsatisfied,” “Neutral,” “Satisfied,” “Very Satisfied”) is not just five unrelated categories; there is an underlying sequence or ranking.
Using chi-Square on ordinal data:
If you only need to assess independence between an ordinal variable and another categorical variable, and the order does not factor into your hypothesis directly, the chi-Square test of independence can be used.
Pitfall: You lose the ordinal structure; any potential trend or linear-by-linear association is not directly captured.
Alternatives:
Ordinal logistic regression (or other ordinal models): If you want to preserve the ordering and model how different factors affect the probability of being in higher vs. lower categories, ordinal logistic regression is more appropriate. It uses cumulative logit modeling to incorporate the natural order.
Non-parametric correlation tests (e.g., Spearman’s rank correlation) if you want to measure the strength of an association between two ordinal variables.
Edge Cases:
Very few categories: If your ordinal variable only has two or three levels, you might treat it as nominal for practical reasons.
Very large sample but many ordinal categories: Collapsing or combining categories might help in some scenarios, but be cautious about losing important resolution.
What if sample sizes are unbalanced across groups in an ANOVA? How does this impact the test and how do we handle it?
Unbalanced sample sizes in ANOVA can lead to complications in interpreting results, especially for multi-factor (factorial) ANOVA, but it can also affect one-way ANOVA.
Potential Impacts:
Reduced Power in Smaller Groups: Groups with very small sample sizes will have higher variability in their mean estimates, making it harder to detect differences.
Violation of Homogeneity of Variances: If the groups have unequal sample sizes and also different variances, the usual F-test in a standard ANOVA can become less robust.
Type I Error Rate Distortion: Unbalanced designs can shift the Type I error rate upward or downward, depending on whether variance assumptions are met.
Mitigation Strategies:
Ensure Homogeneity of Variances: Perform tests like Levene’s test or Bartlett’s test to check variance equality. If violated, consider a variant like Welch’s ANOVA, which handles heterogeneity of variance.
Use Type II or Type III Sums of Squares (in factorial ANOVAs): Statistical software often offers different ways of partitioning variation (Type I, II, III SS). For unbalanced designs, many researchers prefer Type II or III sums of squares for more interpretable results, particularly if the design is not orthogonal.
Consider Non-Parametric Methods: If normality or homogeneity assumptions are clearly violated, the Kruskal–Wallis test (for a one-way design) might be more reliable.
Edge Cases:
Extremely small group sizes (e.g., one group has n=5 while another has n=100) can severely limit ANOVA’s reliability. It may be necessary to collect more data or use specialized methods.
Can I use chi-Square tests if my data are continuous but I convert them into categories? What are the pitfalls?
It is not uncommon to take a continuous variable and discretize it into categories (e.g., “Low,” “Medium,” “High”). You might then perform a chi-Square test to see if frequencies of these categories differ by some grouping variable.
Why Do This?
Simplicity of interpretation. It’s sometimes easier to talk about categories (“Low vs. High”) than continuous measures.
Pitfalls:
Loss of Information: Categorizing a continuous variable discards the nuanced detail contained in the original measurements. Small differences within a category are ignored.
Arbitrary Cutoffs: How you choose the cut points can drastically affect results (e.g., median split vs. tertiles vs. quartiles). You might get different chi-Square outcomes by changing these arbitrary boundaries.
Reduced Statistical Power: You often lose power when collapsing continuous data into categories.
Misleading Results: Especially if the relationship in the continuous domain is non-linear or more subtle, categorizing can distort or mask the true relationship.
Edge Cases:
If you have a clinical reason or widely accepted threshold (e.g., blood pressure categories defined by medical guidelines), then categorization might be justified.
If the data is already measured inherently in categories (like standard exam letter grades that happen to appear numeric), then chi-Square is appropriate.
What is the difference between a factorial ANOVA and a one-way ANOVA? When would I use each?
One-Way ANOVA:
Involves a single factor (independent variable) with multiple levels (e.g., 3 different teaching methods).
Tests if at least one group mean differs from the others.
Factorial ANOVA (also known as Two-Way, Three-Way, etc. ANOVA):
Involves two or more factors. For example, you could investigate the effect of “Teaching Method” (Factor A) and “Student Gender” (Factor B) on test scores.
Not only checks the main effects (the effect of each factor individually) but also the interaction effects (how Factor A’s impact might depend on Factor B).
When to Use:
Use One-Way ANOVA when you have a single categorical variable with multiple groups and one continuous outcome.
Use Factorial ANOVA when there are multiple independent variables, and you suspect they may interact. For example, a new drug’s efficacy might depend both on dosage (Factor A) and age group (Factor B).
Edge Cases:
Complex designs with many factors can be more difficult to interpret if there are multiple high-order interactions.
For repeated factors or repeated measurements within the same subjects, consider repeated-measures or mixed-design ANOVA instead.
What is Welch’s ANOVA, and when should it be used instead of a traditional one-way ANOVA?
Welch’s ANOVA is a variation of the standard one-way ANOVA that does not assume equal variances across groups.
Key Differences from Standard ANOVA:
Welch’s ANOVA uses different calculations for the degrees of freedom and variance estimates to handle unequal variances.
It is typically more robust when group variances (and sometimes sample sizes) are unequal, a condition known as heteroscedasticity.
When to Use:
If you perform a test for equality of variances (e.g., Levene’s test) and find strong evidence that variances differ significantly.
If sample sizes are unbalanced, which can exacerbate the problem of unequal variances in a traditional ANOVA.
Practical Considerations:
Even if the homogeneity of variance assumption is met, Welch’s ANOVA often performs comparably to standard ANOVA in terms of power.
Some software defaults to Welch’s ANOVA because of its robustness.
Edge Cases:
Very small sample sizes in some groups may cause issues with the accuracy of degrees-of-freedom estimates.
Extremely large differences in sample size combined with unequal variances might still cause complexities in interpretation.
Can I conduct a chi-Square test if I have empty cells or zero counts? What are potential solutions for dealing with sparse data?
Empty cells (cells with zero frequency) can pose challenges for the chi-Square test because the formula requires an expected count in each cell, and very small observed or expected counts can invalidate the test’s approximation to the chi-Square distribution.
Challenges:
If the observed count is zero but the expected count is large, that discrepancy might heavily influence the test statistic.
If both observed and expected counts are zero, the cell provides no information for the chi-Square statistic, but it can still affect how you conceptualize the data distribution.
Potential Solutions:
Combine Categories: If possible, merge some categories so that the expected counts in the resulting cells are higher. This is a common approach when dealing with low-frequency categories.
Use Fisher’s Exact Test: If your table is 2×2 or you can manage a relatively small contingency table with sparse counts, Fisher’s Exact Test might be a better choice because it doesn’t rely on the large-sample chi-Square approximation.
Use Monte Carlo Simulations: Some software packages can do a Monte Carlo version of the chi-Square test, randomly generating tables under the null hypothesis to approximate the p-value without relying on asymptotic assumptions.
Edge Cases:
With very large contingency tables and many zero cells, even combining categories might not be practical, and you might need more specialized methods.
If zeros are truly structural (e.g., it’s impossible to have a certain combination of factors), interpret carefully whether that indicates independence or a separate phenomenon.
What is the difference between effect size metrics in ANOVA (e.g., partial eta squared) versus the measure of association in chi-Square (e.g., Cramér’s V)? How do we interpret these in practice?
ANOVA Effect Sizes:
Partial Eta Squared ((\eta_p^2)): Represents the proportion of variance in the dependent variable explained by a particular factor or interaction, excluding other factors from that fraction of variability. For example, a partial eta squared of 0.30 means 30% of the variance (in the outcome variable) is attributable to the factor in question, given the other factors in the model.
Interpretation: Larger values indicate a stronger effect of that factor. However, guidelines for “small,” “medium,” and “large” effects can vary by discipline, and partial eta squared can sometimes appear larger in multifactor designs because it’s “partial.”
Chi-Square Association Measures:
Cramér’s V: A measure of association for nominal variables. It ranges from 0 to 1, where higher values indicate a stronger association between the two categorical variables.
Interpretation: A value near 0 indicates little to no association, while a value near 1 indicates a very strong association. However, the maximum possible value depends partly on the number of categories in the variables.
Differences and Practical Use:
Nature of Variables: Partial eta squared is used for continuous outcomes in ANOVA, whereas Cramér’s V is specifically for nominal/categorical variables.
Interpretation: Partial eta squared focuses on explained variance in a continuous outcome; Cramér’s V focuses on the strength of association among categorical data.
Thresholds: Both metrics have rules of thumb for small/medium/large effects, but these guidelines can differ by field, and the context of the study matters greatly.
Edge Cases:
With many categories or unbalanced group sizes, interpreting Cramér’s V can be tricky.
For ANOVA, partial eta squared can be inflated if there are many factors or interactions; comparing effect sizes across different designs needs caution.