Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
As an alternative, logistic regression was proposed in the late 60s and early 70s (Cabrera, 1994). It became routinely available in statistical packages in the early 80s. With the wide availability of sophisticated statistical software installed on high-speed computers, the use of logistic regression is increasing.
Table 1. Sample Data for Gender and Recommendation for Remedial Reading Gender Totals Boys 73 23 96 Girls 15 11 26 88 34 122
The results yield 2(df =1) = 3.43. Alternatively, one might prefer to assess a boys odds of being recommended for remedial reading instructions, relative to a girls odds; the result is an odds ratio of 2.33.
Its natural logarithm [i.e., ln (2.33)] equals 0.85 which would be the regression coefficient of the gender predictor, if logistic regression were used to model the two outcomes of a remedial recommendation as it is related to gender.
) = + X ,
where is the probability of interested outcome, is the intercept parameter, is a regression coefficient, and X is a predictor. a.k.a. slope parameter
Figure 1. The relationship of a dichotomous outcome variable, Y (1=remedial reading recommended, 0=remedial reading not recommended) with a continuous predictor, READING scores.
For the data in Table 1, the regression coefficient () is the logit (=0.85) previously explained. Taking the antilog of equation (1) on both sides, one derives an equation for the prediction of the probability of the occurrence of the outcome of interest as follows:
Extending the logic of the simple logistic regression to multiple predictors (say X1=reading score and X2=gender), one may construct a complex logistic regression for Y (recommendation for remedial reading programs) as follows:
logit (Y ) = ln = + 1 X 1 + 2 X 2 . 1
e = + 1 x1 + 2 x 2 1+ e
+ 1 x1 + 2 x 2
Remedial Gender Total reading instruction Sample Boys Girls (N) recommende (n1) (n2) d? Yes No Summary 59 130 189 36 57 93 23 73 96
Overall Model Evaluation Tests Likelihood Ratio test Score test 2 10.019 9.518 2 9.286 R2-type Indices Cox and Snell R squared = .052 Nagelkerke (Max rescaled) R squared = .073 df 2 2 p 0.007 0.009 OK?
OK?
Table 3. Logistic Regression Analysis of 189 Childrens Referrals for Remedial Reading Programs by SPSS LOGISTIC REGRESSION command (version 12) Predictor
SE
Walds 2 (df=1)
e (odds ratio)
(not applicable)
0.974 1.911
Table 4. The Observed and the Predicted Frequencies for Remedial Reading Instructions by Logistic Regression with the Cutoff of 0.50 Predicted Observed Yes No Overall % correct Note. Sensitivity=3/(3+56)=5.1% Specificity=129/(1+129)=99.2% False Positive=1/(1+3)=25.0% False Negative=56/(56+129)=30.3% Yes 3 1 No 56 129 Percentage Correct 5.1% 99.2% 69.8%
E s t i m a t e d P r o b a b i l i t y
0.6 Boys A B 0.5 A FA CC EA AI E 0.4 PC Girls BC HB D AC A CB AC 0.3 BB ABA AIB A CJ BA E AKE B AFA B 0.2 BB A CA AAA ACA AB A B A A A 0.1 A A 0.0 40 60 80 100 120 140
Figure 2. Predicted probability of being referred for remedial reading instructions versus reading scores, plotting symbols A=1 observation, B=2 observations, C=3 observations, etc.
Reading score
Table 5. Predicated Probability of Being Referred for Remedial Reading Instructions for 8 Children
Case Number
Beta= 0.026
READIND
GENDER
Beta=0.648
Intercept = 0.534
Predicted probability of being referred for remedial reading instructions 0.4530 0.2618 0.1941 0.1250 0.4051 0.2627 0.1934 0.1115
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 0 1 0 -----