Discriminant Function Analysis in SPSS

To do DFA in SPSS, start from Classify in the Analyze menu (because were trying to
classify participants into different groups). In this case were looking at a dataset that describes
children with ADHD. Research tells us that the degree of symptom impairment in childhood
disorders is often in the eye of the beholdersome adults may think that a child has difficulty
behaving, and other adults may not see it as a problem. For instance mothers (who are still most
often the childs primary caregiver) may think that a child has difficulty sitting still, while fathers
(who may see the child primarily in less-structured play settings) may believe the behavior is
just kids being kids. Were going to look at whether the symptoms reported on four different
measures (q1, q2, q3, and q4) can tell us whether those symptom ratings were provided by the
childs mother (parent = 1) or by the childs father (parent = 2).

In the dialog box, put in parent as the grouping variable (in other words, the variable that
you think defines different groupsyour criterion variable for the analysis). It will appear in the
box with two question marks after ityou have to tell SPSS what the codes are for the two
groups that you want to compare. Hit Define Range and type in 1 and 2 as the different
values of the parent variable that you want to compare. Then hit Continue to go on.

Now put the four question variables (q1-q4) in as the predictors (independents):

Hit the Statistics button to go on.

This sub-dialog box lets you see descriptive statistics on each predictor variable for the different
groups. Lets check Means to see some basic descriptive stats.

Hit Continue to go back to the main dialog box.

Then, in the main dialog box, hit the Classify button to see the next sub-dialog.

Heres the sub-dialog that you get when you hit the Classify button:

On this screen, check the box for the summary table. This will give you the classification table
(sensitivity, specificity, etc.) on your printout.
Hit Continue to go back to the main dialog box, and then hit OK to see the results of your
analysis.

Here are the results:

Analysis Case Processing Summary
Unweighted Cases

Percent

Valid
Excluded

89

97.8

Missing or out-of-range group codes

.0

At least one missing discriminating

2.2

.0

2.2

91

100.0

variable
Both missing or out-of-range group
codes and at least one missing
discriminating variable
Total
Total

This table just tells you if theres any missing data.

Group Statistics
Mother or Father?

Valid N (listwise)
Mean

Father

Mother

Total

Std. Deviation

Unweighted

Weighted

Question 1

1.54

.519

13

13.000

Question 2

1.00

.000

13

13.000

Question 3

1.92

1.038

13

13.000

Question 4

1.62

.870

13

13.000

Question 1

2.41

.819

76

76.000

Question 2

2.67

.598

76

76.000

Question 3

2.17

.915

76

76.000

Question 4

1.82

.905

76

76.000

Question 1

2.28

.839

89

89.000

Question 2

2.43

.810

89

89.000

Question 3

2.13

.932

89

89.000

Question 4

1.79

.898

89

89.000

This table shows the means that we asked forit gives means on each variable for people in
each sub-group, and also the overall means on each variable.

Summary of Canonical Discriminant Functions

Eigenvalues
Function

Canonical
Eigenvalue

dimension0

% of Variance

1.387a

Cumulative %

100.0

Correlation

100.0

.762

a. First 1 canonical discriminant functions were used in the analysis.

This table tells you something about the latent variable that youve constructed (i.e., the
discriminant function), which helps you to differentiate between the groups. For more about
eigenvalues, see the website information on the topic of Factor Analysis.
Wilks' Lambda
Test of Function(s)
dimension0

Wilks' Lambda

.419

Chi-square

df

73.945

Sig.
4

.000

Heres the multivariate testWilks lambda, just like in MANOVA. Because p < .05, we can
say that the model is a good fit for the data. This multivariate test is a goodness of fit statistic,
just like the F-test is for regression.
Standardized Canonical
Discriminant Function
Coefficients
Function
1
Question 1

.149

Question 2

1.007

Question 3

.049

Question 4

.382

These discriminant function coefficients work just like the beta-weights in regression. Based
on these, we can write out the equation for the discriminant function:
DF = .149*q1 + 1.007*q2 + .049*q3 + .382*q4
Using this equation, given someones scores on q1, q2, q3, and q4, we can calculate their score
on the discriminant function. To figure out what that DF score means, look at the group
centroids, below.

Structure Matrix
Function
1
Question 2

.914

Question 1

.336

Question 3

.081

Question 4

.068

Pooled within-groups correlations

between discriminating variables
and standardized canonical
discriminant functions
Variables ordered by absolute
size of correlation within function.

Ignore this tableit tells you the correlation between each item and the discriminant function,
but we wont use it for anything here. Make sure that you arent looking at the structure
matrix when you get the coefficients for the discriminant function. Those come from the table
called standardized canonical discriminant function coefficients (which looks a lot like this
one, but isnt the same).
Functions at Group Centroids
Mother or Father?

Function
1

Father

-2.815

Mother

.482

dimension0

Unstandardized canonical discriminant

functions evaluated at group means

Here are the group centroids. If someones score on the discriminant function is closer to
2.815, then those answers were probably the childs father. If the persons score on the DF is
closer to .482, then the data probably came from the childs mother. In practical terms, we
usually figure out which group a person is in by calculating a cut score halfway between the two
centroids:
Cut Score = (-2.815 + .482) / 2 = -1.167
If an individual persons score on the DF (calculated by plugging in their scores on q1, q2, q3,
and q4 to the DF equation we wrote out above) is above 1.167, then they were probably the
childs mother. If their DF score is below 1.167, then they were probably the childs father.

Classification Statistics
Classification Processing Summary
Processed

91

Excluded

Missing or out-of-range group codes

At least one missing discriminating

variable
Used in Output

89

Prior Probabilities for Groups

Mother or Father?

Cases Used in Analysis

Prior

dimension0

Unweighted

Weighted

Father

.500

13

13.000

Mother

.500

76

76.000

1.000

89

89.000

Total

Classification Resultsa
Mother or Father?

Predicted Group Membership

Father

Original

Count

Mother

Total

Father

13

13

Mother

70

76

Father

100.0

.0

100.0

Mother

7.9

92.1

100.0

dimension2

%
dimension2

a. 93.3% of original grouped cases correctly classified.

Heres the classification table that we got by selecting that option in the SPSS dialog box. Like
the table shown in this weeks class notes, it gives information about actual group membership
vs. predicted group membership.
--Overall % correctly classified = 93.3%
--Sensitivity = 13 / 13 = 100%
--Specificity = 70 / 76 = 92.1%
Looking at the columns in this table instead of the rows, you can also calculate PPV and NPV:
--PPV = 13 / (13+6) = 68.4%
--NPV = 70 / 70 = 100%

Now lets go back to the main dialog box for DFA, and try a stepwise procedure instead.

The only change needed is to change this radio button to use stepwise method. Now SPSS will
select the best predictor or set of predictors from the four original possibilities.

If you click on the Method button (which was grayed-out before, but becomes active once you
select Use Stepwise Method), you will see the following dialog box. Take a look at itit tells
SPSS how to do the steps, and when to stop adding steps. Just leave everything here on its
default settingsno need to make any changes.

Hit Continue here, and then OK in the main dialog box to see your results.

Discriminant
[information omitted]

Analysis 1
Stepwise Statistics
Variables Entered/Removeda,b,c,d
Step

Wilks' Lambda
Exact F
Entered

Statistic

df1

df2

df3

Statistic

df1

df2

Sig.

Question 2

.463

87.000

100.720

87.000

.000

Question 4

.426

87.000

58.050

86.000

.000

At each step, the variable that minimizes the overall Wilks' Lambda is entered.
a. Maximum number of steps is 8.
b. Minimum partial F to enter is 3.84.
c. Maximum partial F to remove is 2.71.
d. F level, tolerance, or VIN insufficient for further computation.

Heres a new table that shows you the steps SPSS went through. Based on this table, Question
2 is the best single predictor, and Question 4 is the next-best one. If you were asked how
many variables would you include in a model to get the best possible prediction?, the answer
would be two of them: Q2 and Q4.

The next two tables show you which predictors were used in each step. Then this table appears:
Wilks' Lambda
Step

Exact F

Number of
Variables

Lambda

df1

df2

df3

Statistic

df1

df2

Sig.

.463

87

100.720

87.000

.000

.426

87

58.050

86.000

.000

Here are the Wilks lambdas for each step. As you can see, the model is a good fit for the data
with just one predictor (Q2) or with two predictors (Q2 and Q4).
Eigenvalues
Function

Canonical
Eigenvalue

dimension0

% of Variance

1.350a

Cumulative %

100.0

Correlation

100.0

.758

a. First 1 canonical discriminant functions were used in the analysis.

Wilks' Lambda
Test of Function(s)
dimension0

Wilks' Lambda

.426

Chi-square
73.479

df

Sig.
2

.000

Standardized Canonical
Discriminant Function
Coefficients
Function
1
Question 2

1.050

Question 4

.397

If you wanted to construct a predictive equation using just the two best predictors, it would be:
DF = 1.050*q2 + .397*q4

Structure Matrix
Function
1
Question 2

.926

Question 1

.186

Question 4

.068

Question 3

.003

Pooled within-groups correlations

between discriminating variables
and standardized canonical
discriminant functions
Variables ordered by absolute size
of correlation within function.
a. This variable not used in the
analysis.

Functions at Group Centroids

Mother or Father?

Function
1

Father

-2.778

Mother

.475

dimension0

Unstandardized canonical discriminant

functions evaluated at group means

If you wanted to know whether someones score on this new, simpler DF suggested that they
were the childs mother or father, youd compare their score on the DF to these centroids. If
their score were closer to 2.778, they were probably the childs father; if their score were closer
to .475, they were probably the childs mother. (Note that these centroids are different from the
ones we used when all four variables were in the model, just as the discriminant function
coefficients are different. You have to use the numbers that correspond to the model with the
specific variables that you want to include).

One last steplets get a graph of the different groups, based on the two best predictors (q2 and
q4). This gives us a visual representation that shows how the two groups separate out from one
another using these two predictors.
Graphs are found in the Graphs menu in SPSS. Well use a scatterplot to show the
differentiation between the two groups. Newer versions of SPSS (v16.0 and higher) have an
interactive chart builder format for graphs, but I find it easier to create graphs using the
individual dialog boxes for specific types of graphs. These are similar to the way SPSS produced
graphs in versions 15.0 and lower, and can be found under the Legacy Dialogs submenu.

This box appears. Leave the graph set on Simple, and hit the Define key to go on.

Heres the dialog box where you enter variables for the graph. Put q2 and q4 on the two axes of
the graph (y and x-axes: it doesnt really matter which one goes on which axis, but if you set
them up this way, your graph will look the same as mine. If you reverse them, it will look like
my graph turned on its side. Either way is correct).

The Set Markers By command lets you show the two different groups on the DV (mothers
vs. fathers) in two different colors on the graph. This is how you will be able to see the
differentiation between the two groups.
Hit OK to see the output.

Heres the graph:

Members of Group 1

Members of Group 2

You can see on this graph how the two groups are visually separated from one another, based on
peoples answers to q2 and q4. Not all discriminant functions will separate groups this perfectly.
Sometimes you can find predictors that statistically differentiate between the groups, while the
graphical representation still shows the groups as pretty jumbled together.

Paul F. Cook, University of Colorado Denver, Center for Nursing Research

Revised 1/10 with SPSS (PASW) version 18.0