IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0205076.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Non-significant p-values? Strategies to understand and better determine the importance of effects and interactions in logistic regression

Author

Listed:
  • Zarina I Vakhitova
  • Clair L Alston-Knox

Abstract

In the context of generalized linear models (GLMs), interactions are automatically induced on the natural scale of the data. The conventional approach to measuring effects in GLMs based on significance testing (e.g. the Wald test or using deviance to assess model fit) is not always appropriate. The objective of this paper is to demonstrate the limitations of these conventional approaches and to explore alternative strategies for determining the importance of effects. The paper compares four approaches to determining the importance of effects in the GLM using 1) the Wald statistic, 2) change in deviance (model fitting criteria), 3) Bayesian GLM using vaguely informative priors and 4) Bayesian Model Averaging analysis. The main points in this paper are illustrated using an example study, which examines the risk factors for cyber abuse victimization, and are further examined using a simulation study. Analysis of our example dataset shows that, in terms of a logistic GLM, the conventional methods using the Wald test and the change in deviance can produce results that are difficult to interpret; Bayesian analysis of GLM is a suitable alternative, which is enhanced with prior knowledge about the direction of the effects; and Bayesian Model Averaging (BMA) is especially suited for new areas of research, particularly in the absence of theory. We recommend that social scientists consider including BMA in their standard toolbox for analysis of GLMs.

Suggested Citation

  • Zarina I Vakhitova & Clair L Alston-Knox, 2018. "Non-significant p-values? Strategies to understand and better determine the importance of effects and interactions in logistic regression," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(11), pages 1-32, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0205076
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0205076
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0205076
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0205076&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0205076?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chris Woolston, 2015. "Psychology journal bans P values," Nature, Nature, vol. 519(7541), pages 9-9, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Federico Echenique & Kevin He, 2021. "Screening $p$-Hackers: Dissemination Noise as Bait," Papers 2103.09164, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2024.
    2. Guillaume Coqueret, 2023. "Forking paths in financial economics," Papers 2401.08606, arXiv.org.
    3. Gunter, Ulrich & Önder, Irem & Smeral, Egon, 2019. "Scientific value of econometric tourism demand studies," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 1-1.
    4. Kenneth Rice & Tyler Bonnett & Chloe Krakauer, 2020. "Knowing the signs: a direct and generalizable motivation of two‐sided tests," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 183(2), pages 411-430, February.

    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:plo:pone00:0205076. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.