Logistic regression models for ordinal response: A study of self-efficacy in colorectal cancer screening

The ordinal logistic regression models are used to analyze the dependant variable with multiple outcomes that can be ranked, but have been underutilized. In this study, we describe four logistic regression models for analyzing the ordinal response variable. ^ In this methodological study, the four regression models are proposed. The first model uses the multinomial logistic model. The second is adjacent-category logit model. The third is the proportional odds model and the fourth model is the continuation-ratio model. We illustrate and compare the fit of these models using data from the survey designed by the University of Texas, School of Public Health research project PCCaSO (Promoting Colon Cancer Screening in people 50 and Over), to study the patient’s confidence in the completion colorectal cancer screening (CRCS). ^ The purpose of this study is two fold: first, to provide a synthesized review of models for analyzing data with ordinal response, and second, to evaluate their usefulness in epidemiological research, with particular emphasis on model formulation, interpretation of model coefficients, and their implications. Four ordinal logistic models that are used in this study include (1) Multinomial logistic model, (2) Adjacent-category logistic model [9], (3) Continuation-ratio logistic model [10], (4) Proportional logistic model [11]. We recommend that the analyst performs (1) goodness-of-fit tests, (2) sensitivity analysis by fitting and comparing different models.^

Selection bias and the cross-validation of regression models for prediction

Strategies are compared for the development of a linear regression model with stochastic (multivariate normal) regressor variables and the subsequent assessment of its predictive ability. Bias and mean squared error of four estimators of predictive performance are evaluated in simulated samples of 32 population correlation matrices. Models including all of the available predictors are compared with those obtained using selected subsets. The subset selection procedures investigated include two stopping rules, C$\sb{\rm p}$ and S$\sb{\rm p}$, each combined with an 'all possible subsets' or 'forward selection' of variables. The estimators of performance utilized include parametric (MSEP$\sb{\rm m}$) and non-parametric (PRESS) assessments in the entire sample, and two data splitting estimates restricted to a random or balanced (Snee's DUPLEX) 'validation' half sample. The simulations were performed as a designed experiment, with population correlation matrices representing a broad range of data structures.^ The techniques examined for subset selection do not generally result in improved predictions relative to the full model. Approaches using 'forward selection' result in slightly smaller prediction errors and less biased estimators of predictive accuracy than 'all possible subsets' approaches but no differences are detected between the performances of C$\sb{\rm p}$ and S$\sb{\rm p}$. In every case, prediction errors of models obtained by subset selection in either of the half splits exceed those obtained using all predictors and the entire sample.^ Only the random split estimator is conditionally (on $\\beta$) unbiased, however MSEP$\sb{\rm m}$ is unbiased on average and PRESS is nearly so in unselected (fixed form) models. When subset selection techniques are used, MSEP$\sb{\rm m}$ and PRESS always underestimate prediction errors, by as much as 27 percent (on average) in small samples. Despite their bias, the mean squared errors (MSE) of these estimators are at least 30 percent less than that of the unbiased random split estimator. The DUPLEX split estimator suffers from large MSE as well as bias, and seems of little value within the context of stochastic regressor variables.^ To maximize predictive accuracy while retaining a reliable estimate of that accuracy, it is recommended that the entire sample be used for model development, and a leave-one-out statistic (e.g. PRESS) be used for assessment. ^

Assessing time-by-covariate interactions in Cox proportional hazards regression models using cubic spline functions

This dissertation develops and explores the methodology for the use of cubic spline functions in assessing time-by-covariate interactions in Cox proportional hazards regression models. These interactions indicate violations of the proportional hazards assumption of the Cox model. Use of cubic spline functions allows for the investigation of the shape of a possible covariate time-dependence without having to specify a particular functional form. Cubic spline functions yield both a graphical method and a formal test for the proportional hazards assumption as well as a test of the nonlinearity of the time-by-covariate interaction. Five existing methods for assessing violations of the proportional hazards assumption are reviewed and applied along with cubic splines to three well known two-sample datasets. An additional dataset with three covariates is used to explore the use of cubic spline functions in a more general setting. ^

Evaluation of the Hosmer -Lemeshow global goodness -of-fit statistic for mixed variable logistic regression models

The performance of the Hosmer-Lemeshow global goodness-of-fit statistic for logistic regression models was explored in a wide variety of conditions not previously fully investigated. Computer simulations, each consisting of 500 regression models, were run to assess the statistic in 23 different situations. The items which varied among the situations included the number of observations used in each regression, the number of covariates, the degree of dependence among the covariates, the combinations of continuous and discrete variables, and the generation of the values of the dependent variable for model fit or lack of fit.^ The study found that the $\rm\ C$g* statistic was adequate in tests of significance for most situations. However, when testing data which deviate from a logistic model, the statistic has low power to detect such deviation. Although grouping of the estimated probabilities into quantiles from 8 to 30 was studied, the deciles of risk approach was generally sufficient. Subdividing the estimated probabilities into more than 10 quantiles when there are many covariates in the model is not necessary, despite theoretical reasons which suggest otherwise. Because it does not follow a X$\sp2$ distribution, the statistic is not recommended for use in models containing only categorical variables with a limited number of covariate patterns.^ The statistic performed adequately when there were at least 10 observations per quantile. Large numbers of observations per quantile did not lead to incorrect conclusions that the model did not fit the data when it actually did. However, the statistic failed to detect lack of fit when it existed and should be supplemented with further tests for the influence of individual observations. Careful examination of the parameter estimates is also essential since the statistic did not perform as desired when there was moderate to severe collinearity among covariates.^ Two methods studied for handling tied values of the estimated probabilities made only a slight difference in conclusions about model fit. Neither method split observations with identical probabilities into different quantiles. Approaches which create equal size groups by separating ties should be avoided. ^