Hello, thanks for all your replies, it was a helpful lesson for me
(and hopefully for my colleagues, too). Bests, Sören
On 11-01-07 11:23, David Winsemius wrote:
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2011 11:23:04 -0500
From: David Winsemius <dwinsem...@comcast.net>
To: sovo0...@gmail.com
Cc: r-help@r-project.org
Subject: Re: [R] Different LLRs on multinomial logit models in R and SPSS
On Jan 7, 2011, at 8:26 AM, sovo0...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, 6 Jan 2011, David Winsemius wrote:
On Jan 6, 2011, at 11:23 AM, Sören Vogel wrote:
Thanks for your replies. I am no mathematician or statistician by far,
however, it appears to me that the actual value of any of the two LLs
is indeed important when it comes to calculation of
Pseudo-R-Squared-s. If Rnagel devides by (some transformation of) the
actiual value of llnull then any calculation of Rnagel should differ.
How come? Or is my function wrong? And if my function is right, how
can I calculate a R-Squared independent from the software used?
You have two models in that function, the null one with ".~ 1" and the
origianl one and you are getting a ratio on the likelihood scale (which is
a difference on the log-likelihood or deviance scale).
If this is the case, calculating 'fit' indices for those models must end up
in different fit indices depending on software:
n <- 143
ll1 <- 135.02
ll2 <- 129.8
# Rcs
(Rcs <- 1 - exp( (ll2 - ll1) / n ))
# Rnagel
Rcs / (1 - exp(-ll1/n))
ll3 <- 204.2904
ll4 <- 199.0659
# Rcs
(Rcs <- 1 - exp( (ll4 - ll3) / n ))
# Rnagel
Rcs / (1 - exp(-ll3/n))
The Rcs' are equal, however, the Rnagel's are not. Of course, this is no
question, but I am rather confused. When publishing results I am required
to use fit indices and editors would complain that they differ.
It is well known that editors are sometimes confused about statistics, and if
an editor is insistent on publishing indices that are in fact arbitrary then
that is a problem. I would hope that the editor were open to education. (And
often there is a statistical associate editor who will be more likely to have
a solid grounding and to whom one can appeal in situations of initial
obstinancy.) Perhaps you will be doing the world of science a favor by
suggesting that said editor first review a first-year calculus text regarding
the fact that indefinite integrals are only calculated up to a arbitrary
constant and that one can only use the results in a practical setting by
specifying the limits of integration. So it is with likelihoods. They are
only meaningful when comparing two nested models. Sometimes the software
obscures this fact, but it remains a statistical _fact_.
Whether you code is correct (and whether the Nagelkerke "R^2" remain
invariant with respect to such transformations) I cannot say. (I suspect that
it would be, but I have never liked the NagelR2 as a measure, and didn't
really like R^2 as a measure in linear regression for that matter, either.) I
focus on fitting functions to trends, examining predictions, and assessing
confidence intervals for parameter estimates. The notion that model fit is
well-summarized in a single number blinds one to other critical issues such
as the linearity and monotonicity assumptions implicit in much of regression
(mal-)practice.
So, if someone who is more enamored of (or even more knowledgeably scornful
of) the Nagelkerke R^2 measure wants to take over here, I will read what
they say with interest and appreciation.
Sören
David Winsemius, MD
West Hartford, CT
--
Sören Vogel, sovo0...@gmail.com, http://sovo0815.wordpress.com/
______________________________________________
R-help@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
