2
$\begingroup$

In designing an analysis, I'd like to decide between using discretised variables versus using the original, continuous variable (the reason being that in this particular case, collecting discretised data per se would be cheaper and easier).

However, my understanding is that discretised predictors lack statistical power in comparison with the continuous case. I.e. using a discretised predictor, I would have to collect substantially more data to identify an effect on a dependent variable.

My question: Is this true and what is the theoretical basis for the lack of statistical power of discretised variables?

I have found some evidence in a 1983 article "The Cost of Dichotomization" (link), but was wondering if there are alternative lines of argumentation that can be applied?

$\endgroup$
2

1 Answer 1

3
$\begingroup$

Smaller Variance Leads To Smaller Power

Discretizing predictors is a bad idea as Frank Harrell explains here. As to your titular question, let's examine a simple scenario.

Let's say I have a predictor which has standard normal distribution. I'd like test the effect of this predictor on an outcome which is also normally distributed conditional on the predictor, with unit variance. Were I to discretize the predictor, I would have a T test on my hands. Leaving the predictor as is would just be a regression. Further more, let's say I collect 25 observations and am interested in a smallest effect of 1 unit of whatever I am measuring.

The power for each test is given by

$$\gamma=1-\Phi\left[z_{1-\alpha / 2}-\left|\beta_{j}^{a}\right| \sigma_{x_{j}} \sqrt{n\left(1-\rho_{j}^{2}\right)} / \sigma_{y \mid \mathbf{x}}\right]$$

Where $\Phi$ is the normal CDF, $\alpha$ is the FPR, $ \beta_j^\alpha$ is smallest meaningful effect size, $\sigma_{x_j}$ is the variance of the predictor, $n$ is the sample size, $1/(1-\rho^2)$ is the variance inflation factor, and $\sigma_{y \vert x}$ is the residual standard deviation.

Let's plug in some of the terms I've mentioned here for economy of thought

$$\gamma=1-\Phi\left[1.96- 5 \sigma_{x_{j}}\right]$$

Because I've picked nice numbers, the power depends only on the variance of the predictor. It isn't hard to see that this is a monotonic function in $\sigma$, hence larger variability in the predictor means greater power. When you dichotomize, the largest $\sigma$ can be is 0.5. In this example, dichotomizing would reduce my power from 99% to nearly 70%.

This fact is true across many GLMs, as the power equations are more or less similar. Smaller variance in the predictor leads to smaller power for the associated test. This is rather intuitive. If you are interested in testing for the slope of a continuous predictor, you'd want that predictor to be as spread out as possible. You can't estimate the slope of you have a little band in which to see the variation in $y$ due to $x$.

Additional Pitfalls

Dichotomizing is also a bad idea because it leads to residual confounding and discontinuity in effects. For example, I'm very confident a woman who is 1 month pregnant is very different than a woman who is 9 months pregnant, but using a variable like is_pregnant treats them as if they were the same. So even if it is the case that you can collect more data by discretizing, the quality of the estimate suffers.

$\endgroup$
6
  • $\begingroup$ +1. Could you provide a reference for the power function? I'd be very interested in reading more about that. Thank you. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 25, 2021 at 14:09
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @COOLSerdash link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-1-4614-1353-0 End of each chapter in this book $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 25, 2021 at 14:11
  • $\begingroup$ Perfect, thank you! $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 25, 2021 at 14:13
  • $\begingroup$ Harrell's RMS book does mention that it can be beneficial to bin variables if it means a bunch of data. The example I remember is that people might not respond at all if you ask how much money they make, but if you ask them for the range into which they fall (perhaps a tax bracket or some similar set of ranges), you might find your increase in data quantity makes up for the binning. I found that interesting. $\endgroup$
    – Dave
    Commented Oct 25, 2021 at 14:27
  • $\begingroup$ @Dave The approach depends on the problem at hand. From an information theoretic perspective, dichotomous variables have the least information and continuous ones have the most (multiple categories naturally are in between). In the case where nothing impedes estimating the effect of the continuous variable, then one should do so. If categorizing means I can avoid pernicious missing data, then I would gladly do so with "enough" categories (whatever that means) $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 25, 2021 at 14:44

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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