Alternatives to Logistic Regression Models in Experimental Studies

Autor/in	Huang, Francis L.
Titel	Alternatives to Logistic Regression Models in Experimental Studies
Quelle	In: Journal of Experimental Education, 90 (2022) 1, S.213-228 (16 Seiten)Infoseite zur Zeitschrift PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	0022-0973
DOI	10.1080/00220973.2019.1699769
Schlagwörter	Regression (Statistics); Monte Carlo Methods; Probability; Error Patterns; Validity; Predictor Variables + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Regression; Regressionsanalyse; Monte-Carlo-Methode; Wahrscheinlichkeitsrechnung; Wahrscheinlichkeitstheorie; Fehlertyp; Gültigkeit; Prädiktor
Abstract	Experiments in psychology or education often use logistic regression models (LRMs) when analyzing binary outcomes. However, a challenge with LRMs is that results are generally difficult to understand. We present alternatives to LRMs in the analysis of experiments and discuss the linear probability model, the log-binomial model, and the modified Poisson regression model. A Monte Carlo simulation assessed bias in point estimates and standard errors as well as power and Type I error rates of the different methods. Findings show that the linear probability and the modified Poisson regression models are valid, unbiased, and in some cases, better alternatives to the LRM when the predictor of interest is a binary variable. An applied example is provided as well. (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2024/1/01