Inconvenient truths about logistic regression and the remedy of marginal effects

IF 6.1 1区 管理学 Q1 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Public Administration Review Pub Date : 2023-12-15 DOI:10.1111/puar.13786
Michael Howell-Moroney
{"title":"Inconvenient truths about logistic regression and the remedy of marginal effects","authors":"Michael Howell-Moroney","doi":"10.1111/puar.13786","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Logistic regression is a standard technique in public administration research. However, there are two inconvenient truths about logistic regression of which scholars should be aware. First, logistic regression results are difficult to interpret. Raw coefficients are expressed in an enigmatic log odds scale and odds ratios are regularly misinterpreted as risk ratios. Second, logistic regression results are non-collapsible, which renders model comparisons invalid. A review of recent public administration articles reveals that these inconvenient truths still plague the discipline. This paper advocates the use of average marginal effects to reckon with both inconvenient truths. Average marginal effects are easy to comprehend because they measure effect sizes on a probability scale. And average marginal effects are collapsible, and hence facilitate valid model comparisons. These concepts are illustrated using data simulations and data from the 2017 Current Population Survey. The paper concludes with suggestions for improved research practice.","PeriodicalId":48431,"journal":{"name":"Public Administration Review","volume":"47 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public Administration Review","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13786","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Logistic regression is a standard technique in public administration research. However, there are two inconvenient truths about logistic regression of which scholars should be aware. First, logistic regression results are difficult to interpret. Raw coefficients are expressed in an enigmatic log odds scale and odds ratios are regularly misinterpreted as risk ratios. Second, logistic regression results are non-collapsible, which renders model comparisons invalid. A review of recent public administration articles reveals that these inconvenient truths still plague the discipline. This paper advocates the use of average marginal effects to reckon with both inconvenient truths. Average marginal effects are easy to comprehend because they measure effect sizes on a probability scale. And average marginal effects are collapsible, and hence facilitate valid model comparisons. These concepts are illustrated using data simulations and data from the 2017 Current Population Survey. The paper concludes with suggestions for improved research practice.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
关于逻辑回归和边际效应补救的令人不安的真相
逻辑回归是公共管理研究中的一种标准方法。然而,关于逻辑回归,有两个难以忽视的事实是学者们应该意识到的。首先,逻辑回归结果难以解释。原始系数以神秘对数比值尺度表示,比值比经常被误解为风险比。其次,逻辑回归的结果是不可折叠的,这使得模型比较无效。对最近公共行政文章的回顾表明,这些令人不快的事实仍然困扰着这门学科。本文提倡使用平均边际效应来考虑这两个难以忽视的事实。平均边际效应很容易理解,因为它们在概率尺度上衡量效应大小。平均边际效应是可折叠的,因此便于有效的模型比较。这些概念使用数据模拟和2017年当前人口调查的数据来说明。文章最后提出了改进研究实践的建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Public Administration Review
Public Administration Review PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION-
CiteScore
15.10
自引率
10.80%
发文量
130
期刊介绍: Public Administration Review (PAR), a bi-monthly professional journal, has held its position as the premier outlet for public administration research, theory, and practice for 75 years. Published for the American Society for Public Administration,TM/SM, it uniquely serves both academics and practitioners in the public sector. PAR features articles that identify and analyze current trends, offer a factual basis for decision-making, stimulate discussion, and present leading literature in an easily accessible format. Covering a diverse range of topics and featuring expert book reviews, PAR is both exciting to read and an indispensable resource in the field.
期刊最新文献
The evolving practice of UK Government ministers First impressions: An analysis of professional stereotypes and their impact on sector attraction Evaluating use of evidence in U.S. state governments: A conjoint analysis How scholars can support government analytics: Combining employee surveys with more administrative data sources towards a better understanding of how government functions Political accountability and social equity in public budgeting: Examining the role of local institutions
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1