#### Transcript Binary Logistic Regression with SPSS

Binary Logistic Regression with SPSS Karl L. Wuensch Dept of Psychology East Carolina University Download the Instructional Document • http://core.ecu.edu/psyc/wuenschk/SPSS/ SPSS-MV.htm . • Click on Binary Logistic Regression . • Save to desktop. • Open the document. When to Use Binary Logistic Regression • The criterion variable is dichotomous. • Predictor variables may be categorical or continuous. • If predictors are all continuous and nicely distributed, may use discriminant function analysis. • If predictors are all categorical, may use logit analysis. Wuensch & Poteat, 1998 • Cats being used as research subjects. • Stereotaxic surgery. • Subjects pretend they are on university research committee. • Complaint filed by animal rights group. • Vote to stop or continue the research. Purpose of the Research • • • • • Cosmetic Theory Testing Meat Production Veterinary Medical Predictor Variables • • • • Gender Ethical Idealism (9-point Likert) Ethical Relativism (9-point Likert) Purpose of the Research Model 1: Decision = Gender • Decision 0 = stop, 1 = continue • Gender 0 = female, 1 = male • Model is ….. logit = Yˆ a bX ln ODDS ln 1 Yˆ • Yˆ is the predicted probability of the event which is coded with 1 (continue the research) rather than with 0 (stop the research). Iterative Maximum Likelihood Procedure • SPSS starts with arbitrary regression coefficents. • Tinkers with the regression coefficients to find those which best reduce error. • Converges on final model. SPSS • Bring the data into SPSS • http://core.ecu.edu/psyc/wuenschk/SPSS/ Logistic.sav • Analyze, Regression, Binary Logistic • Decision Dependent • Gender Covariate(s), OK Look at the Output Case Processing Summary Unweighted Cases Selected Cases a N Included in Analysis Mis sing Cases Total Unselected Cases Total a. If weight is in effect, see classification table for the total number of cases. • We have 315 cases. Percent 315 100.0 0 .0 315 100.0 0 .0 315 100.0 Block 0 Model, Odds • Look at Variables in the Equation. • The model contains only the intercept (constant, B0), a function of the marginal distribution of the decisions. Variables in the Equation B Step 0 Constant -.379 S.E. .115 Wald 10.919 Yˆ ln ODDS ln 1 Yˆ df Sig. 1 . 379 .001 Exp(B) .684 Exponentiate Both Sides • Exponentiate both sides of the equation: • e-.379 = .684 = Exp(B0) = odds of deciding to continue the research. Yˆ 1 Yˆ Exp ( . 379 ) . 684 128 187 • 128 voted to continue the research, 187 to stop it. Probabilities • • • • • Randomly select one participant. P(votes continue) = 128/315 = 40.6% P(votes stop) = 187/315 = 59.4% Odds = 40.6/59.4 = .684 Repeatedly sample one participant and guess how e will vote. Humans vs. Goldfish • Humans Match Probabilities – – (suppose p = .7, q = .3) .7(.7) + .3(.3) = .49 + .09 = .58 • Goldfish Maximize Probabilities – .7(1) = .70 • The goldfish win! SPSS Model 0 vs. Goldfish • Look at the Classification Table for Block 0. Classification Table a,b Predicted decision Step 0 Observed decision stop Percentage Correct continue stop 187 0 100.0 continue 128 0 .0 Overall Percentage 59.4 a. Constant is included in the model. b. The cut value is .500 • SPSS Predicts “STOP” for every participant. • SPSS is as smart as a Goldfish here. Block 1 Model • Gender has now been added to the model. • Model Summary: -2 Log Likelihood = how poorly model fits the data. Model Summary Step 1 -2 Log likelihood 399.913a Cox & Snell R Square .078 Nagelkerke R Square .106 a. Estimation terminated at iteration number 3 because parameter estimates changed by less than .001. Block 1 Model • For intercept only, -2LL = 425.666. • Add gender and -2LL = 399.913. • Omnibus Tests: Drop in -2LL = 25.653 = Model 2. • df = 1, p < .001. Omnibus Tests of Model Coefficients Chi-square Step 1 df Sig. Step 25.653 1 .000 Block 25.653 1 .000 Model 25.653 1 .000 Variables in the Equation • ln(odds) = -.847 + 1.217Gender ODDS e a b Gender Variables in the Equation B Step a 1 S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B) gender 1.217 .245 24.757 1 .000 3.376 Constant -.847 .154 30.152 1 .000 .429 a. Variable(s) entered on s tep 1: gender. Odds, Women ODDS e . 847 1 . 217 ( 0 ) e . 847 0 . 429 • A woman is only .429 as likely to decide to continue the research as she is to decide to stop it. Odds, Men ODDS e . 847 1 . 217 ( 1) e . 37 1 . 448 • A man is 1.448 times more likely to vote to continue the research than to stop the research. Odds Ratio male _ odds female _ odds 1 . 448 3 . 376 e 1 . 217 . 429 • 1.217 was the B (slope) for Gender, 3.376 is the Exp(B), that is, the exponentiated slope, the odds ratio. • Men are 3.376 times more likely to vote to continue the research than are women. Convert Odds to Probabilities • For our women, Yˆ ODDS 1 ODDS 0 . 429 0 . 30 1 . 429 • For our men, Yˆ ODDS 1 ODDS 1 . 448 2 . 448 0 . 59 Classification • Decision Rule: If Prob (event) Cutoff, then predict event will take place. • By default, SPSS uses .5 as Cutoff. • For every man, Prob(continue) = .59, predict he will vote to continue. • For every woman Prob(continue) = .30, predict she will vote to stop it. Overall Success Rate • Look at the Classification Table Classification Table a Predicted decision Step 1 Observed decision stop stop continue continue 140 47 74.9 60 68 53.1 Overall Percentage 66.0 a. The cut value is .500 140 68 315 Percentage Correct 208 315 • SPSS beat the Goldfish! 66 % Sensitivity • P (correct prediction | event did occur) • P (predict Continue | subject voted to Continue) • Of all those who voted to continue the research, for how many did we correctly predict that. 68 68 60 68 128 53 % Specificity • P (correct prediction | event did not occur) • P (predict Stop | subject voted to Stop) • Of all those who voted to stop the research, for how many did we correctly predict that. 140 140 47 140 187 75 % False Positive Rate • P (incorrect prediction | predicted occurrence) • P (subject voted to Stop | we predicted Continue) • Of all those for whom we predicted a vote to Continue the research, how often were we wrong. 47 47 68 47 115 41 % False Negative Rate • P (incorrect prediction | predicted nonoccurrence) • P (subject voted to Continue | we predicted Stop) • Of all those for whom we predicted a vote to Stop the research, how often were we wrong. 60 140 60 60 200 30 % Pearson 2 • Analyze, Descriptive Statistics, Crosstabs • Gender Rows; Decision Columns Crosstabs Statistics • Statistics, Chi-Square, Continue Crosstabs Cells • Cells, Observed Counts, Row Percentages Crosstabs Output • Continue, OK • 59% & 30% match logistic’s predictions. gender * decision Crosstabulation decision stop gender Female Count % within gender Male Count % within gender Total Count % within gender continue Total 140 60 200 70.0% 30.0% 100.0% 47 68 115 40.9% 59.1% 100.0% 187 128 315 59.4% 40.6% 100.0% Crosstabs Output • Likelihood Ratio 2 = 25.653, as with logistic. Chi-Square Tests Value Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) df Pearson Chi-Square 25.685b 1 .000 Likelihood Ratio 25.653 1 .000 N of Valid Cases 315 a. Computed only for a 2x2 table b. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 46.73. Model 2: Decision = Idealism, Relativism, Gender • Analyze, Regression, Binary Logistic • Decision Dependent • Gender, Idealism, Relatvsm Covariate(s) • Click Options and check “HosmerLemeshow goodness of fit” and “CI for exp(B) 95%.” • Continue, OK. Comparing Nested Models • With only intercept and gender, -2LL = 399.913. • Adding idealism and relativism dropped -2LL to 346.503, a drop of 53.41. • 2(2) = 399.913 – 346.503 = 53.41, p = ? Model Summary Step 1 -2 Log likelihood 346.503a Cox & Snell R Square .222 Nagelkerke R Square .300 a. Estimation terminated at iteration number 4 because parameter estimates changed by less than .001. Obtain p • Transform, Compute • Target Variable = p • Numeric Expression = 1 - CDF.CHISQ(53.41,2) p=? • OK • Data Editor, Variable View • Set Decimal Points to 5 for p p < .0001 • Data Editor, Data View • p = .00000 • Adding the ethical ideology variables significantly improved the model. Hosmer-Lemeshow • Hø: predictions made by the model fit perfectly with observed group memberships • Cases are arranged in order by their predicted probability on the criterion. • Then divided into ten bins with approximately equal n. • This gives ten rows in the table. For each bin and each event, we have number of observed cases and expected number predicted from the model. Contingency Table for Hosmer and Lemeshow Test decision = s top Observed Step 1 decision = continue Expected Observed Expected Total 1 29 29.331 3 2.669 32 2 30 27.673 2 4.327 32 3 28 25.669 4 6.331 32 4 20 23.265 12 8.735 32 5 22 20.693 10 11.307 32 6 15 18.058 17 13.942 32 7 15 15.830 17 16.170 32 8 10 12.920 22 19.080 32 9 12 9.319 20 22.681 32 10 6 4.241 21 22.759 27 • Note expected freqs decline in first column, rise in second. • The nonsignificant chi-square is indicative of good fit of data with linear model. Hosmer and Lemeshow Test Step 1 Chi-square 8.810 df Sig. 8 .359 Hosmer-Lemeshow • There are problems with this procedure. • Not even Hosmer and Lemeshow recommend it these days. • Even with good fit the test may be significant if sample sizes are large • Even with poor fit the test may not be significant if sample sizes are small. Linearity of the Logit • We have assumed that the log odds are related to the predictors in a linear fashion. • Use the Box-Tidwell test to evaluate this assumption. • For each continuous predictor, compute the natural log. • Include in the model interactions between each predictor and its natural log. Box-Tidwell • If an interaction is significant, there is a problem. • For the troublesome predictor, try including the square of that predictor. • That is, add a polynomial component to the model. • See T-Test versus Binary Logistic Regression Variables in the Equation B S.E. gender 1.147 idealism 1.130 1.921 Wald .269 18.129 .346 df Sig. Exp(B) 1 .000 3.148 1 .556 3.097 relatvsm 1.656 2.637 .394 1 .530 5.240 idealism by Step 1a -.652 .690 .893 1 .345 .521 idealism_LN relatvsm by -.479 .949 .254 1 .614 .620 relatvsm_LN Constant -5.015 5.877 .728 1 .393 .007 a. Variable(s) entered on step 1: gender, idealism, relatvsm, idealism * idealism_LN , relatvsm * relatvsm_LN . No Problem Here. Model 3: Decision = Idealism, Relativism, Gender, Purpose • Need 4 dummy variables to code the five purposes. • Consider the Medical group a reference group. • Dummy variables are: Cosmetic, Theory, Meat, Veterin. • 0 = not in this group, 1 = in this group. Add the Dummy Variables • Analyze, Regression, Binary Logistic • Add to the Covariates: Cosmetic, Theory, Meat, Veterin. • OK Block 0 • Look at “Variables not in the Equation.” • “Score” is how much -2LL would drop if a single variable were added to the model with intercept only. Variables not in the Equation Score Step 0 Variables Overall Statistics df Sig. gender 25.685 1 .000 idealism 47.679 1 .000 relatvsm 7.239 1 .007 cosmetic .003 1 .955 theory 2.933 1 .087 meat .556 1 .456 veterin .013 1 .909 77.665 7 .000 Effect of Adding Purpose • Our previous model had -2LL = 346.503. • Adding Purpose dropped -2LL to 338.060. Model Summary Step 1 -2 Log likelihood 338.060a Cox & Snell R Square .243 Nagelkerke R Square .327 a. Estimation terminated at iteration number 5 because parameter estimates changed by less than .001. • 2(4) = 8.443, p = .0766. • But I make planned comparisons (with medical reference group) anyhow! Classification Table • YOU calculate the sensitivity, specificity, false positive rate, and false negative rate. Classification Table a Predicted decision Step 1 Observed decision stop stop continue Overall Percentage a. The cut value is .500 continue Percentage Correct 152 35 81.3 54 74 57.8 71.7 Answer Key • • • • Sensitivity = 74/128 = 58% Specificity = 152/187 = 81% False Positive Rate = 35/109 = 32% False Negative Rate = 54/206 = 26% Wald Chi-Square • A conservative test of the unique contribution of each predictor. • Presented in Variables in the Equation. • Alternative: drop one predictor from the model, observe the increase in -2LL, test via 2. Variables in the Equation 95.0% C.I.for EXP(B) B Step a 1 Wald df Sig. Exp(B) Lower Upper gender 1.255 20.586 1 .000 3.508 2.040 6.033 idealism -.701 37.891 1 .000 .496 .397 .620 relatvs m .326 6.634 1 .010 1.386 1.081 1.777 cos metic -.709 2.850 1 .091 .492 .216 1.121 theory -1.160 7.346 1 .007 .314 .136 .725 meat -.866 4.164 1 .041 .421 .183 .966 veterin -.542 1.751 1 .186 .581 .260 1.298 Constant 2.279 4.867 1 .027 9.766 a. Variable(s) entered on s tep 1: gender, idealism, relatvs m, cosmetic, theory, meat, veterin. Odds Ratios – Exp(B) • Odds of approval more than cut in half (.496) for each one point increase in Idealism. • Odds of approval multiplied by 1.39 for each one point increase in Relativism. • Odds of approval if purpose is Theory Testing are only .314 what they are for Medical Research. • Odds of approval if purpose is Agricultural Research are only .421 what they are for Medical research Inverted Odds Ratios • Some folks have problems with odds ratios less than 1. • Just invert the odds ratio. • For example, 1/.421 = 2.38. • That is, respondents were more than two times more likely to approve the medical research than the research designed to feed to poor in the third world. Classification Decision Rule • Consider a screening test for Cancer. • Which is the more serious error – False Positive – test says you have cancer, but you do not – False Negative – test says you do not have cancer but you do • Want to reduce the False Negative rate? Classification Decision Rule • Analyze, Regression, Binary Logistic • Options • Classification Cutoff = .4, Continue, OK Effect of Lowering Cutoff • YOU calculate the Sensitivity, Specificity, False Positive Rate, and False Negative Rate for the model with the cutoff at .4. • Fill in the table on page 15 of the handout. Answer Key Value When Cutoff = .5 .4 Sensitivity 58% 75% Specificity 81% 72% False Positive Rate 32% 36% False Negative Rate 26% 19% Overall % Correct 72% 73% SAS Rules • See, on page 16 of the handout, how easy SAS makes it to see the effect of changing the cutoff. • SAS classification tables remove bias (using a jackknifed classification procedure), SPSS does not have this feature. Presenting the Results • See the handout. Interaction Terms • Center continuous variables • Compute the interaction terms or • Let Logistic compute them. Deliberation and Physical Attractiveness in a Mock Trial • Subjects are mock jurors in a criminal trial. • For half the defendant is plain, for the other half physically attractive. • Half recommend a verdict with no deliberation, half deliberate first. Get the Data • Bring Logistic2x2x2.sav into SPSS. • Each row is one cell in 2x2x2 contingency table. • Could do a logit analysis, but will do logistic regression instead. • Tell SPSS to weight cases by Freq. Data, Weight Cases: • Dependent = Guilty. • Covariates = Delib, Plain. • In left pane highlight Delib and Plain. • Then click >a*b> to create the interaction term. • Under Options, ask for the HosmerLemeshow test and confidence intervals on the odds ratios. Significant Interaction • The interaction is large and significant (odds ratio of .030), so we shall ignore the main effects. Variables in the Equation 95.0% C.I.for EXP(B) Wald Step a 1 df Sig. Exp(B) Lower Upper Delib 3.697 1 .054 .338 .112 1.021 Plain 4.204 1 .040 3.134 1.052 9.339 Delib by Plain 8.075 1 .004 .030 .003 .338 .037 1 .847 1.077 Constant a. Variable(s) entered on step 1: Delib, Plain, Delib * Plain . • Use Crosstabs to test the conditional effects of Plain at each level of Delib. • Split file by Delib. • • • • Analyze, Crosstabs. Rows = Plain, Columns = Guilty. Statistics, Chi-square, Continue. Cells, Observed Counts and Column Percentages. • Continue, OK. Rows = Plain, Columns = Guilty • For those who did deliberate, the odds of a guilty verdict are 1/29 when the defendant was plain and 8/22 when she was attractive, yielding a conditional odds ratio of 0.09483 . Plain * Guilty Crosstabulation a Guilty No Plain Attrractive Count % within Plain Plain Count % within Plain Total Count % within Plain a. Delib = Yes Yes Total 22 8 30 73.3% 26.7% 100.0% 29 1 30 96.7% 3.3% 100.0% 51 9 60 85.0% 15.0% 100.0% • For those who did not deliberate, the odds of a guilty verdict are 27/8 when the defendant was plain and 14/13 when she was attractive, yielding a conditional odds ratio of 3.1339. Plain * Guilty Crosstabulation a Guilty No Plain Attrractive Count % within Plain Plain Count % within Plain Total Count % within Plain a. Delib = No Yes Total 13 14 27 48.1% 51.9% 100.0% 8 27 35 22.9% 77.1% 100.0% 21 41 62 33.9% 66.1% 100.0% Interaction Odds Ratio • The interaction odds ratio is simply the ratio of these conditional odds ratios – that is, .09483/3.1339 = 0.030. • Among those who did not deliberate, the plain defendant was found guilty significantly more often than the attractive defendant, 2(1, N = 62) = 4.353, p = .037. • Among those who did deliberate, the attractive defendant was found guilty significantly more often than the plain defendant, 2(1, N = 60) = 6.405, p = .011. Interaction Between Continuous and Dichotomous Predictor Interaction Falls Short of Significance Standardizing Predictors • Most helpful with continuous predictors. • Especially when want to compare the relative contributions of predictors in the model. • Also useful when the predictor is measured in units that are not intrinsically meaningful. Predicting Retention in ECU’s Engineering Program Practice Your New Skills • Try the exercises in the handout.