Tell me more ×
Cross Validated is a question and answer site for statisticians, data analysts, data miners and data visualization experts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I need some help to understand some topics in Agresti's Categorical Data Analysis. In section 6.3.1 (p 231), he provided a model like:
$$ \text{logit}(\pi_{ik})=\alpha+\beta x_i+\beta_k^Z $$ where $i$=1,2, $k$ = 1, $\ldots$, $K$

Basically we have 3 categorical variables $X$, $Y$, & $Z$ ($Z$ is a confounding variable), and we are trying to test the conditional independence of $X$ & $Y$ for each level of $Z$.

He says that "this model assumes that [the] $XY$ conditional odds ratio [is the] same at each category of $Z$ namely exp($\beta$)"

I cannot understand this statement. How is the odds ratio exp($\beta$)? What about $\beta_k^Z$? isn't this also varying for each level of $Z$? Then the odds ratio must be different $Z$-wise?

What I am missing here?

Thanks for your time

share|improve this question
Do you have some typesetting errors here? For example, you have $i$ subscripting itself and I don't know what $k = $1(1)$k$ means. – Macro Mar 9 '12 at 16:20
I don't know if it clarifies anything but I have edited the formulas to make them identical to the ones in my copy of the book. I haven't read this chapter (yet) so I am not really able to answer the question. – Gaël Laurans Mar 9 '12 at 17:39
Hi Marco and Gael thanks for your contribution. Yes there was 1 typo. We should read k = 1(1)K. And, "Pi" should be read as "PI" which quantifies the Success probability for a particular partial table. And, 1 more thing is, X & Y each have 2 levels but, Z has K levels. – Bogaso Mar 9 '12 at 17:44

1 Answer

up vote 3 down vote accepted

The key to understanding lies in the word "conditional" in the phrase "conditional odds ratio". Basically, the statement means that the model assumes that $\beta$ doesn't vary across different levels of $Z$.

If conditional independence of $Y$ and $X$ given $Z$ holds, then $\beta = 0$, so testing for $\beta = 0$ tests one of the implications of conditional independence. However, one could construct a situation where $\beta$ varies with $Z$ in such a way that, on average, $\beta = 0$, but for any given $Z$, $\beta \ne 0$. In that case, the assumption of conditional independence would be false, yet the test would have a hard time rejecting it, because of the model misspecification due to assuming that $\beta$ doesn't vary with $Z$. Hence the importance of pointing out the assumption.

share|improve this answer
Thanks, now this is quite clear to me! – Bogaso Mar 10 '12 at 13:00

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.