The LOGISTIC Procedure
- Overview
- Getting Started
-
Syntax
PROC LOGISTIC StatementBY StatementCLASS StatementCODE StatementCONTRAST StatementEFFECT StatementEFFECTPLOT StatementESTIMATE StatementEXACT StatementEXACTOPTIONS StatementFREQ StatementID StatementLSMEANS StatementLSMESTIMATE StatementMODEL StatementNLOPTIONS StatementODDSRATIO StatementOUTPUT StatementROC StatementROCCONTRAST StatementSCORE StatementSLICE StatementSTORE StatementSTRATA StatementTEST StatementUNITS StatementWEIGHT Statement -
DetailsMissing ValuesResponse Level OrderingLink Functions and the Corresponding DistributionsDetermining Observations for Likelihood ContributionsIterative Algorithms for Model FittingConvergence CriteriaExistence of Maximum Likelihood EstimatesEffect-Selection MethodsModel Fitting InformationGeneralized Coefficient of DeterminationScore Statistics and TestsConfidence Intervals for ParametersOdds Ratio EstimationRank Correlation of Observed Responses and Predicted ProbabilitiesLinear Predictor, Predicted Probability, and Confidence LimitsClassification TableOverdispersionThe Hosmer-Lemeshow Goodness-of-Fit TestReceiver Operating Characteristic CurvesTesting Linear Hypotheses about the Regression CoefficientsJoint Tests and Type 3 TestsRegression DiagnosticsScoring Data SetsConditional Logistic RegressionExact Conditional Logistic RegressionInput and Output Data SetsComputational ResourcesDisplayed OutputODS Table NamesODS Graphics
-
ExamplesStepwise Logistic Regression and Predicted ValuesLogistic Modeling with Categorical PredictorsOrdinal Logistic RegressionNominal Response Data: Generalized Logits ModelStratified SamplingLogistic Regression DiagnosticsROC Curve, Customized Odds Ratios, Goodness-of-Fit Statistics, R-Square, and Confidence LimitsComparing Receiver Operating Characteristic CurvesGoodness-of-Fit Tests and SubpopulationsOverdispersionConditional Logistic Regression for Matched Pairs DataExact Conditional Logistic RegressionFirth’s Penalized Likelihood Compared with Other ApproachesComplementary Log-Log Model for Infection RatesComplementary Log-Log Model for Interval-Censored Survival TimesScoring Data SetsUsing the LSMEANS StatementPartial Proportional Odds Model
- References
Joint Tests and Type 3 Tests
For models that use less-than-full-rank parameterization (as specified by the PARAM=GLM option in the CLASS statement), a Type 3 test of an effect of interest (main effect or interaction) is a test of the Type III estimable functions that are defined for that effect. When the model contains no missing cells, the Type 3 test of a main effect corresponds to testing the hypothesis of equal marginal means. For more information about Type III estimable functions, see Chapter 46: The GLM Procedure, and Chapter 15: The Four Types of Estimable Functions. Also see Littell, Freund, and Spector (1991).
For models that use full-rank parameterization, all parameters are estimable when there are no missing cells, so it is unnecessary to define estimable functions. The standard test of an effect of interest in this case is the joint test that the values of the parameters associated with that effect are zero. For a model that uses effects parameterization (as specified by the PARAM=EFFECT option in the CLASS statement), the joint test for a main effect is equivalent to testing the equality of marginal means. For a model that uses reference parameterization (as specified by the PARAM=REF option in the CLASS statement), the joint test is equivalent to testing the equality of cell means at the reference level of the other model effects. For more information about the coding scheme and the associated interpretation of results, see Muller and Fetterman (2002, Chapter 14).
If there is no interaction term, the Type 3 test of an effect for a model that uses GLM parameterization is the same as the joint test of the effect for the model that uses full-rank parameterization. In this situation, the joint test is also called the Type 3 test. For a model that contains an interaction term and no missing cells, the Type 3 test of a component main effect under GLM parameterization is the same as the joint test of the component main effect under effect parameterization. Both test the equality of cell means. But this Type 3 test differs from the joint test under reference parameterization, which tests the equality of cell means at the reference level of the other component main effect. If some cells are missing, you can obtain meaningful tests only by testing a Type III estimation function, so in this case you should use GLM parameterization.
The results of a Type 3 test or a joint test do not depend on the order in which you specify the terms in the MODEL statement.