2017
DOI: 10.1080/02664763.2017.1282441
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Inferences from logistic regression models in the presence of small samples, rare events, nonlinearity, and multicollinearity with observational data

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
28
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 39 publications
(28 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
0
28
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Although these analyses do not generate false detection of CNDD, they bias the quantification of both CNDD and HNDD by introducing systematic errors that produce spurious interspecific patterns. For example, logistic regressions, a common tool for survival analysis, are quite sensitive to measuring errors and nonlinearity (Stefansky & Carroll ; Heid et al ; Bergtold et al ). A logistic regression assumes that survival approaches zero for high values of local density.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although these analyses do not generate false detection of CNDD, they bias the quantification of both CNDD and HNDD by introducing systematic errors that produce spurious interspecific patterns. For example, logistic regressions, a common tool for survival analysis, are quite sensitive to measuring errors and nonlinearity (Stefansky & Carroll ; Heid et al ; Bergtold et al ). A logistic regression assumes that survival approaches zero for high values of local density.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To examine the change in the probability of having a psychiatric disorder over time (i.e., disorder trajectory) and to examine how disorder trajectory related to the various risk factor(s), all MI-GEE analyses included an Age × Risk Factor interaction term as an independent variable, and the interaction effect was illustrated with marginal effects of the independent variables. Marginal effect is robust to sample size and has been shown to be a more appropriate measure of how variables interact in relation to the probability of the outcome variable than the coefficient of the interaction term in the regression (Bergtold, Yeager, & Featherstone, 2011; Berry, DeMeritt, & Esarey, 2010). The slope of the disorder trajectory was reflected by average marginal effects of age (ME A ), the estimated population differences in the probability of having a psychiatric disorder between the two ages.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…All nondichotomous variables have been standardised prior to running the regression analyses (Di Stefano et al 2009: 5-6). Given our relatively small sample size (N ¼ 705), 7 we present marginal effects, instead of odd ratios, to make the interpretation more reliable (Bertgold et al 2018).…”
Section: Data and Variablesmentioning
confidence: 99%