Notice: On April 23, 2014, Statalist moved from an email list to a forum, based at statalist.org.
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: st: Brant's Test for Parallel Lines
From
Cameron McIntosh <[email protected]>
To
STATA LIST <[email protected]>
Subject
RE: st: Brant's Test for Parallel Lines
Date
Fri, 14 Oct 2011 16:54:52 -0400
Yes, the test is of course more powerful at larger N, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the discrepancies it is detecting are trivial (ignorable), without more detailed diagnostics on precisely where the misfit is arising from (i.e., which covariate effects violate the assumption). Why not use a partial proportional odds model instead?
Williams, R. (2006). Generalized ordered logit/partial proportional odds models for ordinal dependent variables. The Stata Journal, 6(1), 58–82.
http://www.stata-journal.com/abstracts/st0097.pdf
http://ideas.repec.org/c/boc/bocode/s453401.html
Cam
> From: [email protected]
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: st: Brant's Test for Parallel Lines
> Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 21:36:00 +0100
>
> Hello,
>
> I have an ordered logit model that uses a large amount of data, 2.5 million
> cases. Brant's test for parallel lines is significant (p>chi2 = 0.00) which
> suggest that the model I am using is inappropriate. However, I have found
> various references that suggest the test is pessimistic with very large
> samples - highlighting small differences that are not actually critical. I
> cannot get access to Brant original paper so I would welcome some advice as
> to whether this is likely to be the case here. Is there a better test
> available for large samples?
>
>
>
> *
> * For searches and help try:
> * http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search
> * http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
> * http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/
*
* For searches and help try:
* http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search
* http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
* http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/