Use and misuse of the reduced major axis for line‐fitting
Top Cited Papers
- 7 May 2009
- journal article
- review article
- Published by Wiley in American Journal of Physical Anthropology
- Vol. 140 (3) , 476-486
- https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.21090
Abstract
Many investigators use the reduced major axis (RMA) instead of ordinary least squares (OLS) to define a line of best fit for a bivariate relationship when the variable represented on theX‐axis is measured with error. OLS frequently is described as requiring the assumption thatXis measured without error while RMA incorporates an assumption that there is error inX. Although an RMA fit actually involves a very specific pattern of error variance, investigators have prioritized the presence versus the absence of error rather than the pattern of error in selecting between the two methods. Another difference between RMA and OLS is that RMA is symmetric, meaning that a single line defines the bivariate relationship, regardless of which variable isXand which isY, while OLS is asymmetric, so that the slope and resulting interpretation of the data are changed when the variables assigned toXandYare reversed. The concept of error is reviewed and expanded from previous discussions, and it is argued that the symmetry‐asymmetry issue should be the criterion by which investigators choose between RMA and OLS. This is a biological question about the relationship between variables. It is determined by the investigator, not dictated by the pattern of error in the data. IfXis measured with error but OLS should be used because the biological question is asymmetric, there are several methods available for adjusting the OLS slope to reflect the bias due to error. RMA is being used in many analyses for which OLS would be more appropriate. Am J Phys Anthropol, 2009.Keywords
This publication has 104 references indexed in Scilit:
- Habitual use of the primate forelimb is reflected in the material properties of subchondral bone in the distal radiusJournal of Anatomy, 2006
- Function of a key morphological innovation: fusion of the cichlid pharyngeal jawProceedings Of The Royal Society B-Biological Sciences, 2005
- Measurement Error ModelsJournal of the American Statistical Association, 2000
- Sampling effort, regression method, and the shape and slope of size–abundance relationsJournal of Animal Ecology, 1998
- Bivariate allometry: Interval estimation of the slopes of the ordinary and standardized normal major axes and structural relationshipJournal of Theoretical Biology, 1990
- Phylogenies and the Comparative MethodThe American Naturalist, 1985
- Determination of relative size: The “criterion of subtraction” problem in allometryJournal of Theoretical Biology, 1984
- On rethinking allometry: which regression model to use?Journal of Theoretical Biology, 1983
- The Fitting of Straight Lines when Both Variables are Subject to ErrorJournal of the American Statistical Association, 1959