Notice: On April 23, 2014, Statalist moved from an email list to a forum, based at statalist.org.
| From | Steve Samuels <sjsamuels@gmail.com> |
| To | statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu |
| Subject | Re: st: Testing equality of odds ratios outside of logistic regression |
| Date | Sun, 9 May 2010 20:18:06 -0400 |
Actually Michael M.'s response answers your question, because you did not ask for a simultaneous test. Steve On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 8:16 PM, Steve Samuels <sjsamuels@gmail.com> wrote: > You can use -logistic- and test the interactions or -cc- with a test > for homogeneity > > ***************** > use http://www.stata-press.com/data/r11/bdesop, clear > des > gen tobac20 = tobacco <=2 > xi: logistic case i.tobac20*i.alcohol [fw=freq] > testparm _ItobXa* > cc case tobac20 [fw=freq], by(alcohol) bd > ********************** > or > On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 7:49 PM, Michael I. Lichter <MLichter@buffalo.edu> wrote: >> I'm assisting on a paper where we examine the relationship between each of >> four dichotomous predictors variables and one dichotomous outcome variable. >> Prediction is our primary objective. The predictors are all measures of more >> or less the same thing, and we want to know whether, *without controlling >> for any of the others*, they predict the outcome equally well. We want to be >> able to say, "If you could only pick one of these variables as a predictor >> of the outcome, it wouldn't make any difference which one you selected." >> >> For each of the predictors we calculate a odds ratio and a corresponding >> confidence interval. The odds ratios are very similar in magnitude and have >> confidence intervals that overlap almost entirely. We did not do any formal >> tests, not knowing of any offhand, and, because this isn't a central point, >> we didn't think it was very important. When we reported that the odds ratios >> were essentially equal, a reviewer objected that we had not tested for >> equality. Any suggestions? >> >> In logistic regression, by the way, two of the four variables emerged as >> significant predictors and two did not, controlling for the others. That is >> of interest, but it doesn't answer my initial question. At least, I don't >> think it does. >> * >> * 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/ >> > > > > -- > Steven Samuels > sjsamuels@gmail.com > 18 Cantine's Island > Saugerties NY 12477 > USA > Voice: 845-246-0774 > Fax: 206-202-4783 > -- Steven Samuels sjsamuels@gmail.com 18 Cantine's Island Saugerties NY 12477 USA Voice: 845-246-0774 Fax: 206-202-4783 * * 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/