Re: st: "Proper" usage: Univariate, bivariate, multivariate, multivariable

[Austin Nichols <austinnichols@gmail.com>]

Nicole--

In many dictionaries, variate==variable (see also papers from the
1920s and 30s).  And biviariate means two variables, whatever that
means, in whatever context.  Why not stick with multi-outcome and
multi-predictor, or multi-regressand and multi-regressor, or somesuch?
 E.g. a single-regressand and multi-regressor model, or a
multi-regressand and single-regressor model?

On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Nicole Boyle <nicboyle@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> There are some terms commonly used in the literature that seem (to me)
> technically misused. Nick Cox addressed a similar question
> previously*, but I'm unfortunately still confused as to the proper
> usage of these terms.
>
> My understanding:
>
> (1) Multivariable: Model with more than one exposure var and one outcome var.
>
> (2) Multivariate: Model with one or more exposure vars and multiple
> outcome vars.
>
> (3) Multivariable model != Multivariate model
>
> (4) Univariate: Not a true model, but just looks at distribution of
> one "exposure" var within a group. This method may be repeated across
> multiple groups, e.g. demographics table with no test statistics. (In
> my humble opinion, this should be instead termed "univariable" to
> indicate a single variable, since "univariate" seems to imply a model
> with one outcome variable and an undefined number of exposure vars.)
>
> (5) Bivariate: Model with one exposure var and one outcome var. (In my
> very novice opinion, this should instead be termed "bivariable" to
> indicate two variables, since "bivariate" seems to imply two outcome
> variables with an undefined number of exposure vars.)
>
> (6) Univariate!=Bivariate
>
> I've decided to run this by you all while writing what feels like a
> strange sentence: "Univariate and multivariable Cox proportional
> hazards models..." Perhaps this should be "Bivariate and
> multivariable" or even "Bivariable and multivariable"?
>
> What would be considered proper usage (where "proper usage" might be
> defined as technically correct, or might even be defined as
> technically incorrect but widely accepted)?
>
> Thanks so much for your consideration,
> Nicole Boyle
>
> * http://www.stata.com/statalist/archive/2009-02/msg00398.html
> *
> *   For searches and help try:
> *   http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search
> *   http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/resources/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/faqs/resources/statalist-faq/
*   http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/