Skip to main content
Log in

Unobserved heterogeneity and the comparison of coefficients across nested logistic regression models: how to avoid comparing apples and oranges

  • Hints & Kinks
  • Published:
International Journal of Public Health

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Best H, Wolf C (2012) Modellvergleich und Ergebnisinterpretation in Logit-und Probit-Regressionen. Kölner Z Soziol Soz 64:377–395

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brzoska P, Voigtländer S, Spallek J, Razum O (2010) Utilization and effectiveness of medical rehabilitation in foreign nationals residing in Germany. Eur J Epidemiol 25:651–660

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brzoska P, Sauzet O, Yilmaz-Aslan Y, Widera T, Razum O (2016) Self-rated treatment outcomes in medical rehabilitation among German and non-German nationals residing in Germany: an exploratory cross-sectional study. BMC Health Serv Res 16:105

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bund (2016) Public Use File Abgeschlossene Rehabilitation im Versicherungsverlauf 2006 bis 2013 (PUFRSDLV13B). Forschungsdatenzentrum der Deutschen Rentenversicherung Bund, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S, Sturdivant RX (2013) Applied logistic regression. Wiley, Hoboken

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Karlson KB, Holm A, Breen R (2012) Comparing regression coefficients between same-sample nested models using logit and probit: a new method. Sociol Methodol 42:286–313

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohler U, Karlson KB, Holm A (2011) Comparing coefficients of nested nonlinear probability models. Stata J 11:420–438

    Google Scholar 

  • Long JS, Freese J (2014) Regression models for categorical dependent variables using Stata. Stata press, College Station

    Google Scholar 

  • MacKinnon DP, Krull JL, Lockwood CM (2000) Equivalence of the mediation, confounding and suppression effect. Prev Sci 1:173–181

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Mood C (2010) Logistic regression: why we cannot do what we think we can do, and what we can do about it. Eur Sociol Rev 26:67–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wooldridge JM (2010) Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. MIT press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Patrick Brzoska.

Ethics declarations

Funding

This study was funded by means of own resources.

Ethical approval

The use of the secondary data presented in this article follows the requirements as defined by the German Social Code VI, IX and X. Since the data are fully anonymized, no additional ethical approval for the present analysis was necessary.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Brzoska, P., Sauzet, O. & Breckenkamp, J. Unobserved heterogeneity and the comparison of coefficients across nested logistic regression models: how to avoid comparing apples and oranges. Int J Public Health 62, 517–520 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00038-016-0918-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00038-016-0918-5

Keywords

Navigation