1
$\begingroup$

This is a follow up to this question on this site.

Let's say I'm doing a Logistic Regression with 2 Independent Variables (IVs). One IV is ordinal and named AGE, and the other is categorical and named SERVICE with 3 categories: A, B and C.

Let's say I get the following result:

Scenario 1:

Analysis of Deviance Table (Type II tests)  
                   Df   Chisq Pr(>Chisq)    
AGEP                1 1154.18  < 2.2e-16 ***
as.factor(SERVICE)  4  450.12  < 2.2e-16 ***

Coefficients:
                         Estimate  Std. Error z value Pr(>|z|)    
(Intercept)                1.1     5.974e-02  -1.748 0458 *** 
AGE                        1.2     1.038e-03 -33.973  < 2e-16 ***
as.factor(SERVICE)B        1.3     3.572e-02   5.175 2.27e-07 ***
as.factor(SERVICE)C        1.4     3.448e-02  -1.515 0.129877    

(note: *** indicates significant p-value at some desired level)

Here's how I think one would interpret the results of the SERVICE variable:

  • Being in the category A is a significant predictor of the outcome, with an effect size of 1.1 on the log of the odds ratio.
  • Being in the category B is a significant predictor of the outcome, and is significantly different than being in category A, with an effect size of 1.3 on the log of the odds ratio.
  • Being in the category C is not significantly different than being in category A (in its effect on the outcome).

Question 1: Is the above interpretation correct (for the SERVICE variable)?


Scenario 2:

Let's say I get the following result:

Analysis of Deviance Table (Type II tests)  
                   Df   Chisq Pr(>Chisq)    
AGEP                1 1154.18  < 2.2e-16 ***
as.factor(SERVICE)  4  450.12  < 2.2e-16 ***

Coefficients:
                         Estimate  Std. Error z value Pr(>|z|)    
(Intercept)                1.1     5.974e-02  -1.748 0.20458  
AGE                        1.2     1.038e-03 -33.973  < 2e-16 ***
as.factor(SERVICE)B        1.3     3.572e-02   5.175 2.27e-07 ***
as.factor(SERVICE)C        1.4     3.448e-02  -1.515 0.129877    

Notice that Intercept is no longer significant.

Here's how I think one would interpret the results of the SERVICE variable:

  • Being in the category A is not a significant predictor of the outcome.
  • Being in the category B is a significant predictor of the outcome, with an effect size of 1.3 on the log of the odds ratio.
  • Being in the category C is not a significant predictor of the outcome.

Question 2: Is the above interpretation correct (for the SERVICE variable)?

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I don't think you should say "Being in the category A is not a significant predictor of the outcome." It's A vs B (or C) changes the probability of the outcome. $\endgroup$ – Jeremy Miles Nov 19 '16 at 0:41
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ This all looks terminally weird to me. how do the significance levels change when the p-values are the same? and why are the z not the result of the obvious divisions? $\endgroup$ – mdewey Nov 19 '16 at 21:18
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You don't know about the significance of the difference between B and C, without running the model again with a different reference category. Read up on dummy variables. $\endgroup$ – Jeremy Miles Nov 19 '16 at 21:30
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ (Why does service have 8 df?) $\endgroup$ – Jeremy Miles Nov 19 '16 at 21:30
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @mdewey Good catch. It was a contrived example. I changed the p-value to be something appropriate to non-significance. $\endgroup$ – thanks_in_advance Nov 19 '16 at 21:33

Your Answer

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

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.