RE: st: gologit2

[David Jacobs <jacobs.184@sociology.osu.edu>]

While I find this entire discussion extremely interesting and useful 
for my research, I don't yet find a solution for how to handle 
referees who often can be mechanical and rigid about the departures 
they will allow from the most conservative textbook practices.

The question of how one would get an analysis based on an ordinal 
estimator into a strong journal if it doesn't pass the Brant test, 
unfortunately still remains unanswered.  While some of the advice has 
been invaluable, I need statistical cites for these suggested 
departures from this test.  The Scott Long book on this subject 
(Long, J. Scott. 1997. Regression Models For Categorical and Limited 
Dependent Variables.  Thousand Oaks CA:Sage) won't be of any help 
because he simply states that ordinal analyses often won't pass the test.

Can anyone offer statistical or econometric cites that justify the 
Brant test substitutes that people have mentioned on the list?

Thanks.

Dave Jacobs

At 03:04 PM 4/17/2008, you wrote:

> In an earlier response in this thread,
> Richard Williams <Richard.A.Williams.5@ND.edu>  remarked:
>
> >My experience is that it is rare to have a model where the
> >proportional odds assumption isn't violated!  Often, though, the
> >violation only involves a small subset of the variables, in which
> >case gologit2 can be useful.  You might also want to consider more
> >stringent alpha levels (e.g. .01, .001) to reduce the possibility of
> >capitalizing on chance.  You can also try to assess the practical
> >significance of violations, e.g. do my conclusions and/or predicted
> >probabilities really change that much if I stick with the model whose
> >assumptions are violated as opposed to a (possibly much harder to
> >understand and interpret) model whose assumptions are not violated.
>
> I would sound in to support the idea that the Brant test commonly 
> detects departures from proportional odds that are so small as to be 
> uninteresting.  In fact, I would suggest as a conjecture that, if 
> the sample size
> is large enough to trust the asymptotic p-values from the Brant 
> test,  then the sample size is large enough that trivial departures 
> from  prop. odds will achieve small p-values.  I would suggest 
> instead  approaching this specification problem by looking at the 
> relative increase in the pseudo-R^2 value associated with moving to 
> a non-proportional odds model. My own experiments on using such 
> measures to address the related problem of variable choice ordinal 
> logit models shows that one measures is about as good as the next. 
> (see my comment in 
> http://www.stata.com/statalist/archive/2008-03/msg00249.html  for a 
> brief discussion of this point and a citation.)
> Now, I admit that there is a problem in knowing exactly how big a 
> *relative* change in R^2 (10%?) warrants a more complicated model, 
> but I don't think this is worse than to p-values as the sole arbiter.
>
> Regards,
>
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> Mike Lacy, Assoc. Prof.
> Soc. Dept., Colo. State. Univ.
> Fort Collins CO 80523 USA
> (970)-491-6721
>
>
> *
> *   For searches and help try:
> *   http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/res/findit.html
> *   http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
> *   http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/

*
*   For searches and help try:
*   http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/res/findit.html
*   http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
*   http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/