Review of Categorical Models for Classification Issues in Accounting and Finance
Recent studies have extensively used the logit or probit models for classification problems in accounting and finance. More than 289 articles in prestigious journals have used these or similar methods from 1989 through 1996. This paper reviews several categorical techniques and compares the performance of logit or probit with alternative procedures. Intuitive and mathematical explanations of how the models examined differ in terms of underlying assumptions and other attributes are provided. The alternative techniques are applied to two substantive research questions: predicting bankruptcy and auditors' consistency judgements. Four empirical criteria provide some evidence that the exponential generalized beta of the second kind (EGB2), lomit, and burrit (all new to the accounting and finance literature) improve the log-likelihood functions, and the explanatory power, compared with logit and other models. EGB2, lomit and burrit also provide significantly better classifications and predictions than logit and other techniques. Copyright 1999 by Kluwer Academic Publishers
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 13 (1999)
Issue (Month): 1 (July)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://springerlink.metapress.com/link.asp?id=102990|
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:rqfnac:v:13:y:1999:i:1:p:39-62. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Guenther Eichhorn)or (Christopher F. Baum)
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.