Notice: On April 23, 2014, Statalist moved from an email list to a forum, based at statalist.org.

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

From |
"Bontempo, Daniel E" <[email protected]> |

To |
<[email protected]> |

Subject |
RE: st: getting realitve risk from proportional odds ratio |

Date |
Wed, 8 Dec 2010 11:07:08 -0600 |

```
Thanks Maarten -
I thought the there would be this kind of problem.
I am intrigued by the mlogit suggestion. Would I lose the ordered nature of my dv? The levels are not nominal, but increasing. Could I use the constraint option to specify the order?
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Maarten buis
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 2:55 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: st: ST: getting realitve risk from proportional odds ratio
--- On Tue, 7/12/10, Bontempo, Daniel E wrote:
> I have used "ologit dv iv, or" where my dv is 0 to 5
> reported limitations on activities of daily living. (With
> such a restricted range of counts, a Poisson model did not
> seem right.) I requested the odds ratio output format.
> However there seems to be a lot of advice on reporting
> relative risk (RR) instead of OR. I find many formulas that
> calculate RR from OR and rate information for the reference
> group (i.e., iv=0). But here I am unsure if what works for
> OR can work for proportional OR. Since the OR is for a one
> level increase in the DV, what rate can I use in the formula.
I very much doubt whether the odds ratios in an ordered logit
can be meaningfully transformed to risk ratios. The idea behind
the ordered logit is that there are effects on the odds of getting
0 versus more, 0 or 1 versus more, 0, 1, 2 versus more, etc, and
that all these effects are constrained to be equal. That is why
it can give you one effect (odds ratio) for each variable. The
formulas for transforming OR to RR are approximate, and I don't
think they play well with the constraint implicit in the ordered
logit model. My guess would be that you would get 5 (number of
categories -1) different RR for each variable, so that would
defeat the very purpose of the proportional odds assumption. So
either I would use -ologit- and interpret results in terms of odds
ratios, or I would use -mlogit- and interpret results in terms of
risk ratios.
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/
*
* 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/
```

**Follow-Ups**:**RE: st: getting realitve risk from proportional odds ratio***From:*Maarten buis <[email protected]>

**RE: st: getting realitve risk from proportional odds ratio***From:*Nick Cox <[email protected]>

**References**:**st: ST: getting realitve risk from proportional odds ratio***From:*"Bontempo, Daniel E" <[email protected]>

**Re: st: ST: getting realitve risk from proportional odds ratio***From:*Maarten buis <[email protected]>

- Prev by Date:
**st: RE: dprobit command** - Next by Date:
**Re: st: Testing equality of 2 coefficients after FE regression: How does Stata compute the Pooled SE and test statistic?** - Previous by thread:
**Re: st: ST: getting realitve risk from proportional odds ratio** - Next by thread:
**RE: st: getting realitve risk from proportional odds ratio** - Index(es):