Regression Models for Binary Response

Biometrika ◽  
1995 ◽  
Vol 82 (4) ◽  
pp. 747-769 ◽  
Author(s):  
JIM ALBERT ◽  
SIDDHARTHA CHIB

Web Ecology ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 22-29 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. Carl ◽  
C. F. Dormann ◽  
I. Kühn

Abstract. Species distributional data based on lattice data often display spatial autocorrelation. In such cases, the assumption of independently and identically distributed errors can be violated in standard regression models. Based on a recently published review on methods to account for spatial autocorrelation, we describe here a new statistical approach which relies on the theory of wavelets. It provides a powerful tool for removing spatial autocorrelation without any prior knowledge of the underlying correlation structure. Our wavelet-revised model (WRM) is applied to artificial datasets of species’ distributions, for both presence/absence (binary response) and species abundance data (Poisson or normally distributed response). Making use of these published data enables us to compare WRM to other recently tested models and to recommend it as an attractive option for effective and computationally efficient autocorrelation removal.


Biometrics ◽  
1998 ◽  
Vol 54 (1) ◽  
pp. 367 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas R. Ten Have ◽  
Allen R. Kunselman ◽  
Erik P. Pulkstenis ◽  
J. Richard Landis

2018 ◽  
Vol 49 (2) ◽  
pp. 498-525 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jouni Kuha ◽  
Colin Mills

It is widely believed that regression models for binary responses are problematic if we want to compare estimated coefficients from models for different groups or with different explanatory variables. This concern has two forms. The first arises if the binary model is treated as an estimate of a model for an unobserved continuous response and the second when models are compared between groups that have different distributions of other causes of the binary response. We argue that these concerns are usually misplaced. The first of them is only relevant if the unobserved continuous response is really the subject of substantive interest. If it is, the problem should be addressed through better measurement of this response. The second concern refers to a situation which is unavoidable but unproblematic, in that causal effects and descriptive associations are inherently group dependent and can be compared as long as they are correctly estimated.


2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jouni Kuha ◽  
Colin Mills

It is widely believed that regression models for binary responses are problematic if we want to compare estimated coefficients from models for different groups or with different explanatory variables. This concern has two forms. The first arises if the binary model is treated as an estimate of a model for an unobserved continuous response, and the second when models are compared between groups which have different distributions of other causes of the binary response. We argue that these concerns are usually misplaced. The first of them is only relevant if the unobserved continuous response is really the subject of substantive interest. If it is, the problem should be addressed through better measurement of this response. The second concern refers to a situation which is unavoidable but unproblematic, in that causal effects and descriptive associations are inherently group-dependent and can be compared as long as they are correctly estimated.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document