The interpretation of multiplicative‐model parameters as standardized parameters
- 30 May 1994
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Wiley in Statistics in Medicine
- Vol. 13 (10) , 989-999
- https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.4780131002
Abstract
Under current conventions, relative-risk estimates obtained from multiplicative models are interpreted as estimates of a homogeneous, effect. Such interpretations condition on the unverifiable assumption that the relative risk under study is homogeneous, an assumption that is not likely to be correct even if the model fits well. We propose that such estimates are better interpreted as estimates of standardized relative risks, with a bias component that depends on the degree of model misspecification and on the study design. To evaluate our proposal, we present a study of the maximum-likelihood estimators from Poisson and logistic regression compared to the population-standardized rate ratio. The results indicate that our proposed interpretation would in practice be more cautious and accurate than the homogeneous-effect interpretation.Keywords
This publication has 16 references indexed in Scilit:
- A Comparison of the Performance of Model-Based Confidence Intervals When the Correct Model Form Is UnknownEpidemiology, 1994
- Interpreting Model Coefficients When the True Model Form Is UnknownEpidemiology, 1993
- Meta-analysis of Epidemiologic Dose-Response DataEpidemiology, 1993
- Estimating standardized parameters from generalized linear modelsStatistics in Medicine, 1991
- The effects of model selection on confidence intervals for the size of a closed populationStatistics in Medicine, 1991
- The Impact of Model Selection on Inference in Linear RegressionThe American Statistician, 1990
- Interpretation and estimation of summary ratios under heterogeneityStatistics in Medicine, 1982
- Maximum Likelihood Estimation of Misspecified ModelsEconometrica, 1982