Asymptotic equivalence of paired Hotelling test and
conditional logistic regression
arXiv:1610.06774v1 [] 21 Oct 2016

Félix Balazard1,2
1

2

Sorbonne Universités, UPMC Univ Paris 06, CNRS
INSERM U1169, Hôpital Bicêtre, Université Paris-Sud,
felix.balazard@inserm.fr

Abstract
Matching, the stratification of observations, is of primary importance for the analysis of
observational studies. We show that the score test of conditional logistic regression and the
paired Student/Hotelling test, two tests for paired data, are asymptotically equivalent.
Keywords: matching, conditional logistic regression, asymptotic equivalence, paired
Student test, observational studies.

1

Introduction

Observational studies are the main source of information in many areas of science such
as epidemiology or the social and political sciences (Rosenbaum, 2002). Such studies aim
at estimating the effect of a treatment on an outcome and they differ from randomized
experiments by the absence of random allocation of treatment. This lack of randomization
is due to ethical or economical considerations and as a consequence, observational studies
are subject to confounding. In the typical context of an observational study, we have n
observations of a random outcome Y and a random predictor or treatment X. The analysis
is complicated by the possibility of confounding i.e., the influence of a third variable Z on X
or Y . To take an example, suppose Y is lung cancer, X is yellow coloration of the teeth and Z
is smoker status. If we do not take into account Z, we will find an association between Y and
X but if we control for Z, the association will disappear since both lung cancer and yellow
coloration of the teeth are caused by smoking. In a randomized experiment, randomization
will ensure that the treated and non-treated group have similar values for all confounders.
Matching is an important method to control for bias in observational studies. Matching is
the grouping of observations in strata. Such a grouping is necessary when the observations in
a strata cannot be considered independent. For example, consider a continuous variable, such
as blood pressure, which is measured before and after the beginning of a medical treatment
given to a group of patients. In order to show that the treatment is effective, an incorrect
1

approach would be to compare the mean of the group before treatment to the mean after
treatment using a two-samples Student test. This naive approach relies on the unwarranted
assumption of independence of the measurement of the same patient before and after the
treatment. The correct approach is to compute the difference between blood pressure before
and after treatment for each patient and then to test if the differences have zero mean using
a Student test. This is called the paired Student test. In this simple example, the stratas
are the pairs of observations of the same patient.
In presence of confounding, matching on the values of the confounder remove bias (Rubin,
1973) or when there are several confounders, other techniques based on matching can be
used (Rosenbaum and Rubin, 1983). Matching can also guide the data collection of an
observational study. This is best illustrated by the case-control study in epidemiology. Such a
study begins by gathering disease cases for example at hospitals. The recruitment of controls
is less straightforward than the recruitment of cases and must try and limit confounding.
One way of achieving this is to choose controls that are naturally matched to cases: for
each case, controls are chosen among friends or neighbors whose –potentially unobserved–
confounders are similar to that of the case. As the case and his controls have been chosen
for their similarity, they cannot be considered independent and must be grouped in a strata.
Once a matching is obtained, adapted statistical procedures are needed and especially
statistically sound testing procedures. A good reference on statistical methods for matched
data is the monograph by Breslow and Day (1981). For strata limited to pairs of one case and
one control (or before and after treatment) and when the predictor X is a binary variable,
the so-called McNemar test can be used (McNemar, 1947). In this simple case, there are
only 4 possibilities for each pair. The data can be summarized in the following two-by-two
contingency table.
Table 1: McNemar test
Y =1
X=0 X=1
X=0
a
b
Y =0
X=1
c
d
In the table above, a + d is the number of pairs of a case and a control concordant for the
predictor X and b + c is the number of discordant pairs. The statistic ξmc of the McNemar
test depends only on the numbers of discordant pairs b and c and has the following form:
ξmc =

(b − c)2
.
b+c

Under the null hypothesis of independence between Y and X, ξmc follows the χ2 distribution
asymptotically (McNemar, 1947). This test statistic has the advantage of being computationally simple.
However, in many settings, we have access to more than one control for each case. For
example, in the Isis-Diab study (Balazard et al., 2016), each patient was asked to recruit two
controls . A test for strata of arbitrary size and a binary predictor was proposed in Mantel
and Haenszel (1959) and is now referred to as the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test. It
2

also provides an estimate of the odd-ratio associated with the predictor. The original article
contains an interesting discussion of practical aspects of the prospective study of disease.
If the predictor is not binary but continuous, appropriate tests are available if the matching is a pairing i.e., each case has exactly one control. If the vector of differences between
cases and controls can be assumed to be normally distributed, a Student test can be applied on this vector to decide if its mean is zero as in our first example. The resulting test
is called the paired Student test (McDonald, 2009, p180-185). The paired Hotelling test
is the generalization of the paired Student test when there are several predictors. When
the normality assumption is not respected, a non-parametric alternative is available via the
Wilcoxon signed rank test.
None of the above procedures allow for analysis of continuous variables with arbitrary
strata size. This was made possible by conditional logistic regression (CLR) first introduced
in Breslow et al. (1978). CLR is however not limited to continuous variables and can be
applied in all settings of the previous tests. As CLR is based on logistic regression, it is more
flexible than the previous tests and allows for multivariate analyses.
When different statistical tests are available for the same data, it is desirable to prove
that their results are similar. For procedures based on maximum likelihood such as CLR,
the three tests of significance for predictors (the Wald test, the likelihood ratio test and the
score test) have been shown to be asymptotically equivalent (Engle, 1984). This result of
asymptotic equivalence is with respect to the null hypothesis as well as to a sequence of local
alternatives.
For the analysis of matched data with a binary predictor, the available tests have been
shown to be identical. When the strata are pairs, both the CMH test and the McNemar test
can be applied and their statistic is identical (Agresti and Kateri, 2011, p413). When the
strata size is arbitrary, CMH and CLR can be applied and the CMH statistic is identical to
the score test statistic of CLR (Day and Byar, 1979) and therefore if the strata are pairs,
the McNemar statistic will be identical to the score test statistic of CLR.
When the strata are pairs and the predictor (resp. predictors) is continuous, the paired
Student test (resp. paired Hotelling test) and CLR can be applied. However, to the best of
the author’s knowledge, there are no results comparing the two procedures in that case. The
objective of this note is to prove that the paired Hotelling test is asymptotically equivalent
to the score test of CLR and therefore also to the Wald and likelihood ratio tests.
We start by deriving the exact form of the two test statistics in section 2. Finally, we
present our result and prove it in section 3.

2

Test statistics

Let Yi` be the label of the `-th individual of the i-th stratum and Xi` ∈ Rp its continuous
predictor value. The paired Hotelling test can be applied when stratas are pairs of discordant
observations and therefore ` ∈ {1, 2}. Without loss of generality, we can assume that Yi1 = 1
and Yi2 = 0.
We are interested in testing the null hypothesis:
H0 : There is no association between Y and X
3

(1)

against the alternative hypothesis:
H1 : There is an association between Y and X.
To test this null hypothesis in this setting, we have two options: the paired Hotelling
test whose test statistic we denote ξhot or CLR whose score test statistic we denote ξsc . We
now derive the expressions of those two test statistics. As we will show below, the paired
Hotelling test and CLR depend only on the vector of differences between pairs. We therefore
denote Zi = Xi1 − Xi2 the difference between pairs.
Paired Hotelling test The hypotheses tested by the paired Hotelling test are expressed
by the parameter µ = (E[Zj ])j∈{1,...,p} , the mean of the difference between pairs. Using this
parameter, the hypothesis (2) becomes H0 : µ = 0.
Let the unbiased sample covariance be defined as:
n

C=
where Z̄ =

1
n

Pn

i=1

1 X
(Zi − Z̄)(Zi − Z̄)> ,
n − 1 i=1

Zi and ∗> is the transposition operator. The statistic of the test is:
ξhot = nZ̄ > C −1 Z̄.

(2)

When Z follows a centered Gaussian distribution, the distribution of ξhot is called the
Hotelling distribution.
Conditional Logistic Regression score test In logistic regression, the likelihood of an
observation, given the parameters α ∈ R and β ∈ Rp , equals:
>

ey(α+β X)
P(Y = y|X) =
,
>
1 + eα+β X
with y ∈ {0, 1}.
Logistic regression can take into account stratification by having a different constant term
αi for each stratum. However, when the strata are small e.g., pairs, this leads to a large
number of parameters and biases parameter estimation (Breslow and Day, 1981, p249-251).
Conditional logistic regression adresses the problem by conditioning the likelihood on the
number of cases in each stratum. This eliminates the need to estimate the αi . In the case
of pairings, when the first observation is a case and the second is a control, the conditional
likelihood of the i-th strata is:

4

P(Yi1 = 1, Yi2 = 0|Xi1 , Xi2 , Yi1 + Yi2 = 1)
P(Yi1 = 1|Xi1 )P(Yi2 = 0|Xi2 )
=
P(Yi1 = 1|Xi1 )P(Yi2 = 0|Xi2 ) + P(Yi1 = 0|Xi1 )P(Yi2 = 1|Xi2 )
=

=
=

exp(αi +β > Xi1 )
1+exp(αi +β > Xi1 )

×

1
1+exp(αi +β > Xi2 )

exp(αi +β > Xi1 )
exp(αi +β > Xi2 )
× 1+exp(α 1+β> X ) + 1+exp(α 1+β> X ) × 1+exp(α
>
1+exp(αi +β > Xi1 )
i
i2
i
i1
i +β Xi2 )
exp(β > Xi1 )
(The αi have been eliminated.)
exp(β > Xi1 ) + exp(β > Xi2 )

1
.
1 + exp(β > (Xi2 − Xi1 ))

In the general case, when there is k cases in a strata of size m, with the cases being the first
k observations, the conditional likelihood of a strata can be written:
P
m
X
exp( kj=1 β > Xij )
P(Yij = 1 for j ≤ k, Yij = 0 for j > k|Xi1 , . . . , Xim ,
Yij = k) = P
,
P
>
exp(β
X
)
m
ij
J∈C
j∈J
j=1
k

where Ckm is the set of all subsets of size k of the set {1, . . . , m}.
To obtain the full conditional likelihood, we multiply over each stratum and take the log
to obtain the log-likelihood L(β, Z):
L(β, Z) = −

n
X

log(1 + e−β

>

Zi

).

i=1

The score s(β, Z) is then defined by:
n

X
Zi
∂L
(β, Z) =
s(β, Z) =
.
>
∂β
exp(β Zi ) + 1
i=1
If β = β 0 , the covariance matrix of s(β 0 , Z) is Fisher’s information matrix:
!


n
X
Zij Zik exp(β >
Z
)
∂ 2L
i
0
I(β 0 ) = E[−
(β , z)|β 0 ]
=
>
∂β j ∂β k 0
(exp(β
Z
)
+
1)2
0 i
j,k∈{1,...,p}
i=1

.
j,k∈{1,...,p}

To test the hypothesis H0 : β = β 0 , the score test statistic is:
ξsc = s(β 0 , Z)> I(β 0 , z)−1 s(β 0 , Z)
Expressed using β, hypothesis (2) becomes H0 : β = 0. As shown above, the null
hypothesis of the paired Hotelling test is expressed using µ, the mean of the difference
between pairs, rather than β, the regression coefficient. There is no general correspondence
between the two parameters. However, the two null hypotheses that are of interest in practice
are the same: µ = 0 ⇐⇒ β = 0.
5

For β = 0, the score, Fisher’s information matrix and the test statistic become:
n
s(0, Z) = Z̄,
2

n

1X
Zi Zi>
I(0, Z) =
4 i=1

and
n

ξsc = nZ̄ >

1X
Zi Zi>
n i=1

!−1
Z̄.

(3)

Now that we have expressed analytically ξhot and ξsc , we state our result in the following
section.

3

Asymptotic equivalence

In this section, we introduce the sequence of local alternatives and state the result of asymptotic equivalence between the two tests.
We adopt the framework of Engle (1984) for asymptotic equivalence. The motivation for
considering a sequence of local alternatives is that any reasonable test will have the right
size and will reject a fixed alternative when the number of observations becomes large. The
sequence of local alternatives considers deviations from the null that approach the null as
sample size increases. This allows to compare tests more precisely.
(n)
We model the sequence of local alternatives by a triangular array of observations (Zi )n∈N,i∈{1,...,n}
that respects the following assumption. Let δ ∈ Rp and Σ be a positive definite matrix of
dimension p.
(n)

Assumption 1. For all n ∈ N, i ∈ {1, . . . , n}, we have E[Zi ] =
(n)

In addition, Wi

(n)

= Zi

−

√δ
n

√δ
n

(n)

and Cov[Zi ] = Σ.

are independent and identically distributed.

The triangular array of Assumption 1 is the sequence of local alternatives. The parameter δ controls the deviation from the null. The
√ null hypothesis is the special case of
the sequence of local alternatives when δ = 0. The n in the denominator of the deviation
shrinks the deviation towards the null as the sample size increases. This particular power of
n ensures that the test statistics are well-behaved as they converge in distribution.
We denote ξsc,n (resp. ξhot,n ) the statistic of the score test (resp. of the paired Hotelling
test) associated with Z (n) , the n-th line of the triangular array of Assumption 1. In
the same fashion as for the Student distribution and the χ2 distribution, the Hotelling
distribution with degrees of freedom p and n − 1 and the χ2p distribution are different for
P

finite samples but they are the same asymptotically. Therefore, ξsc,n −ξhot,n −
→ 0 is enough to
guarantee asymptotic equivalence. Our theorem is more precise as it includes the convergence
rate and limiting distribution of this difference. We note the convergence in distribution d.
Theorem 1. Under the null or a sequence of local alternatives, the paired Hotelling test and
the score test of CLR are asymptotically equivalent. More precisely, under Assumption 1,
we have:
d
n(ξsc,n − ξhot,n ) →
− K
6


where K = (δ + V )> Σ−1 Σ − (δ + V )(δ + V )> Σ−1 (δ + V )> with V ∼ N (0, Σ) and N
refers to the normal distribution.
Examples of distribution of K for p = 1, Σ = σ 2 = 1 and different values of δ are shown
in figure 1. We see that for small values of δ, K is concentrated between 0 and 1/4. As δ
grows, the distribution shifts to large, negative values.
For the practitioner, the result of Theorem 1 will not affect the choice of test but ensures
that similar conclusions are reached regardless of that choice. The result also implies that
CLR can be considered a generalization of the paired Hotelling or Student test when the
conditions for the latter do not apply.
Proof of Theorem 1 To facilitate the notation, we omit the dependence in n in most
quantities, writing Z instead of Z (n) . The quantity we want to estimate is:
n(ξsc,n − ξhot,n ) = n2 Z̄ > (Ĩ −1 − C −1 )Z̄ = n2 Z̄ > Ĩ −1 (C − Ĩ)C −1 Z̄,
(4)
P
where Ĩ = n1 ni=1 Zi Zi> .
The Lindeberg-Feller Central Limit Theorem for triangular arrays (Hall and Heyde, 1980,
(n)
Theorem 3.2 p58) applied on the Wi gives:
√

d

nZ̄ →
− (δ + V ),

(5)

with V ∼ N (0, Σ). The weak law of large numbers for triangular arrays implies:
P

C−
→ Σ.

(6)

1X
1X
P
Ĩ =
Zi Zi> =
(Zi − Z̄)(Zi − Z̄)> + Z̄ Z̄ > −
→Σ
n i=1
n i=1

(7)

Combining (5) and (6), we see:
n

n

and, using the second identity in (7), we obtain:
d

n(C − Ĩ) = C − nZ̄ Z̄ > →
− Σ − (δ + V )(δ + V )> .
Applying Slutsky’s lemma to all of the above, we conclude:
d

n(ξsc,n − ξhot,n ) →
− K

where K = (δ + V )> Σ−1 Σ − (δ + V )(δ + V )> Σ−1 (δ + V )> with V ∼ N (0, Σ). This
concludes the proof of Theorem 1.

Acknowledgements
The author thanks Gérard Biau for his supervision and his many comments on the manuscript.
Funding: The author acknowledges a PhD grant from École Normale Supérieure.
7

Delta=1

Density

3

6

0

0

1

2

2

4

Density

4

8

5

6

10

Delta=0

−0.8

−0.6

−0.4

−0.2

0.0

0.2

−1.0

−0.8

−0.6

−0.4

−0.2

K

K

Delta=2

Delta=3

0.0

0.2

0.0

0.2

0.0

0.00

0.2

0.05

0.10

Density

0.6
0.4

Density

0.8

1.0

0.15

1.2

−1.0

−1.0

−0.8

−0.6

−0.4

−0.2

0.0

0.2

−1.0

K

−0.8

−0.6

−0.4

−0.2

K

Figure 1: Distribution of K. Distribution of the limit variable for p = 1, Σ = σ 2 = 1 and
δ ∈ {0, 1, 2, 3}.

8

References
References
P. Rosenbaum. Observational Studies. Springer, New York, 2002.
D. Rubin. Matching to remove bias in observational studies. Biometrics, 29:159–183, 1973.
P. Rosenbaum and D. Rubin. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies
for causal effects. Biometrika, 70:41–55, 1983.
N.E. Breslow and N.E. Day. Statistical methods in cancer research. The analysis of casecontrol studies. International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, 1981.
Q. McNemar. Note on the sampling error of the difference between correlated proportions
or percentages. Psychometrika, 12:153–157, 1947.
F. Balazard, S. Le Fur, S. Valtat, Isis Diab collaborative group, A.-J. Valleron, and
P. Bougnères. Association of environmental markers with childhood type 1 diabetes mellitus revealed by a long questionnaire on early life exposures and lifestyle in a case-control
study. BMC Public Health, 2016.
N. Mantel and W. Haenszel. Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective
studies. Journal of the national cancer institute, 22:719–748, 1959.
J.H. McDonald. Handbook of Biological Statistics. Sparky House Publishing, Baltimore,
2009.
N.E. Breslow, N.E. Day, K.T. Halvorsen, R.L. Prentice, and C. Sabai. Estimation of multiple
relative risk functions in matched case-control studies. American Journal of Epidemiology,
108:299–307, 1978.
R.F. Engle. Wald, likelihood ratio, and lagrange multiplier tests in econometrics. Handbook
of Econometrics, 2:775–826, 1984.
A. Agresti and M. Kateri. Categorical Data Analysis. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2011.
N.E. Day and D.P. Byar. Testing hypotheses in case-control studies-equivalence of mantelhaenszel statistics and logit score tests. Biometrics, 35:623–630, 1979.
P. Hall and C.C. Heyde. Martingale limit theory and its application. Academic Press., New
York, 1980.

9

