Bookmark and Share

Notice: On March 31, it was announced that Statalist is moving from an email list to a forum. The old list will shut down at the end of May, and its replacement, statalist.org is already up and running.


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: st: RE: Logistic regression interpretation


From   Maarten buis <maartenbuis@yahoo.co.uk>
To   statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu
Subject   Re: st: RE: Logistic regression interpretation
Date   Wed, 22 Sep 2010 09:23:07 +0000 (GMT)

--- On Wed, 22/9/10, Kieran McCaul wrote:
> low risk, control group: OR=1.00 (ref)
> high risk, control group: OR=2.11
> low risk, treatment group: OR=4.79
> high risk, treatment group: OR=2.11*4.79=10.11


--- I wrote:
> There are no interactions so the odds increases
> with a factor 2.1 when one receives the treatment
> regardless of whether one is in the high or
> low risk group 

These two statements appear to be a contradiction,
but they are not. The difference is in what we define 
as our reference group.

I compared control versus treatment both in high risk 
group and control versus treatment both in the low 
risk group. This is how I think of "controlling for
a variable".

Kieran compared all groups with the low risk control
group. 

As always, an effect is just a comparison of groups,
so think about what kind of comparison would answer 
your research question, and choose your definition
of reference group accordingly.

Hope this helps,
Maarten

--------------------------
Maarten L. Buis
Institut fuer Soziologie
Universitaet Tuebingen
Wilhelmstrasse 36
72074 Tuebingen
Germany

http://www.maartenbuis.nl
--------------------------


      

*
*   For searches and help try:
*   http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search
*   http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
*   http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/


© Copyright 1996–2014 StataCorp LP   |   Terms of use   |   Privacy   |   Contact us   |   Site index