4
$\begingroup$

I'm using a negative binomial GLM to predict individual level scores on a psychometric test that ranges from 0-27 and presenting the coefficient "incidence rate ratios".

It seems a little strange to use the term "incidence rate ratio" when actually it is a psychometric score ratio. Should I still use the term "incidence rate ratio" in my manuscript for easy recognition/interpretation? If not, is there another, more generic term that is used or should I make up my own domain specific term (e.g. PGSI ratio where PGSI is the psychometric index I am modelling).

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ I agree with @EpiGrad's answer. I am wondering where this term cropped up in your situation - did someone publish a paper on the test using this term? $\endgroup$
    – Michelle
    Commented Mar 13, 2012 at 7:16
  • $\begingroup$ @Michelle Yep, another paper in the field whose methods we are replicating. I have seen applied glm guides that present this estimate as an IRR regardless of field, which is where the confusion probably stems from. $\endgroup$
    – fmark
    Commented Mar 14, 2012 at 4:41
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ looks like the use comes from Stata, e.g. here ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/faq/relative_risk.htm and here data.princeton.edu/wws509/stata/c4s1.html. But I'm hard pressed to see how the number of "children ever born" can be viewed as an incidence (prevalence - maybe). $\endgroup$
    – Michelle
    Commented Mar 14, 2012 at 5:18

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
3
$\begingroup$

I don't think its appropriate to use the term "incidence rate ratio" and your instincts are correct. You're reporting, as far as I can tell, neither an incident event, nor an actual rate, and rather than retain it because "that's what usually comes out of a negative binomial GLM" I think coming up with a new term will add clarity. I know if I hit "IRR" or the like and you weren't reporting incident cases, my first thought would be "The hell...?"

I vote for a domain-specific term, and a one line discussion of how its obtained, ala "obtained by the exponentiation of the beta1 in a negative binomial GLM..."

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$

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.