0
$\begingroup$

I'm a bit (actually, totally) confused with SPSS ordinal regression output.

Let say we have dependent variable score=1,2,3,4,5 (higher is better) and one predictor gender=male,female.

We run Ordinal regression and get parameter "Estimate" for male=1. 1 is log-odds, so odds ratio (OR) is 2.7

What does it mean? Being male causes to get 2.7 times HIGHER chance to get higher score compare to being female, or LOWER?

Different resources I found in the internet give opposite interpretation (i.e. OR=EXP(B) or OR=EXP(-B) or I can't correctly interpret them...

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Exp(b) is how much times (i.e. the ratio) the estimated odds in the dependent variable increases when the predictor switches to male (from female). The odds is Prob(code>j)/Prob(code<=j) for any j from 1,2,3,4,5. If you choose to think of the odds as Prob(code<=j)/Prob(code>j) then exp(-b) is the same as the previous. $\endgroup$ – ttnphns Apr 11 '15 at 14:23
  • $\begingroup$ Does "Prob(code>j)" mean "probability of having higher value of dependent variable"? Does it mean that Prob(code<=j)/Prob(code>j) equal to reverse scale (1-best, 5-worst)? $\endgroup$ – Niksr Apr 11 '15 at 15:22
  • $\begingroup$ Probability of having value higher than threshold j (j can be 1,2,3,4, no matter, because the effect on the log is modelled as straight, linear). $\endgroup$ – ttnphns Apr 11 '15 at 15:56
1
$\begingroup$

In ordinal regression, the odds ratio tells you the odds of being in the higher levels of the dependent ordinal variable (relative to being in or below a given level) for a one unit change in the predictor variable. In your case a 1-unit change in the predictor variable means being a male. Hence, the interpretation of your result would be "Being a male increases the odds of being in the higher levels of the dependent variable by a factor of 2.7 (or 2.7 times). For additional explanation, you can check http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/output/stata_ologit_output.htm.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you. Could you clarify if the 'higher levels of the dependent variable' is equal to "higher numeric value of the dependent variable"? This "level" is exactly what confuses me. $\endgroup$ – Niksr Apr 11 '15 at 15:25
  • $\begingroup$ The numbers tell the rank of a given level. Higher numbers indicate higher rank (i.e., a higher magnitude of the variable of interest). Therefore, for example, if you are talking about pain severity on a four-point scale ranging from 0-3 such that 0=no pain, 1=mild pain, 2=moderate pain, and 3=severe pain, then a higher level indicates any level above the first (or any other)level. ...(to be cont'd). $\endgroup$ – Ayalew A. Apr 13 '15 at 7:25
  • $\begingroup$ (cont'd)...This means, relative to the level 'no pain', all other level are higher levels; relative to 'mild pain' and lower (i.e., 'no pain'), 'moderate pain' and 'sever pain' are higher levels; and relative to 'moderate pain' and lower levels, 'sever pain' is a higher level. $\endgroup$ – Ayalew A. Apr 13 '15 at 7:28
  • $\begingroup$ Perfect, thank you! Now everything clear. I was confused with "higher" term. Now I understand that "3" is always considered higher then "2", i.e. numeric value defines level, not other staff like direction of dependencies or frequencies. $\endgroup$ – Niksr Apr 14 '15 at 8:17
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Yes, in the context of ordinal regression, the numbers tell nothing more than the rank of a given level, I think. $\endgroup$ – Ayalew A. Apr 14 '15 at 8:38

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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