IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/pscirm/v9y2021i3p549-564_7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Estimating logit models with small samples

Author

Listed:
  • Rainey, Carlisle
  • McCaskey, Kelly

Abstract

In small samples, maximum likelihood (ML) estimates of logit model coefficients have substantial bias away from zero. As a solution, we remind political scientists of Firth's (1993, Biometrika, 80, 27–38) penalized maximum likelihood (PML) estimator. Prior research has described and used PML, especially in the context of separation, but its small sample properties remain under-appreciated. The PML estimator eliminates most of the bias and, perhaps more importantly, greatly reduces the variance of the usual ML estimator. Thus, researchers do not face a bias-variance tradeoff when choosing between the ML and PML estimators—the PML estimator has a smaller bias and a smaller variance. We use Monte Carlo simulations and a re-analysis of George and Epstein (1992, American Political Science Review, 86, 323–337) to show that the PML estimator offers a substantial improvement in small samples (e.g., 50 observations) and noticeable improvement even in larger samples (e.g., 1000 observations).

Suggested Citation

  • Rainey, Carlisle & McCaskey, Kelly, 2021. "Estimating logit models with small samples," Political Science Research and Methods, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(3), pages 549-564, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:pscirm:v:9:y:2021:i:3:p:549-564_7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S2049847021000091/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Nuno Garoupa & Fernando Gómez Pomar & Adrián Segura & Sheila Canudas, 2023. "Punishing terrorists in the Spanish Supreme Court: has ideology played any role?," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 56(1), pages 1-21, August.
    2. Manuela Moschella & Luca Pinto, 2022. "The multi‐agencies dilemma of delegation: Why do policymakers choose one or multiple agencies for financial regulation?," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(4), pages 1250-1264, October.
    3. Rahmouni, Mohieddine, 2023. "Corruption and corporate innovation in Tunisia during an economic downturn," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 314-326.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:pscirm:v:9:y:2021:i:3:p:549-564_7. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/ram .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.