Quality & Quantity

, Volume 43, Issue 1, pp 59–74 | Cite as

Linear versus logistic regression when the dependent variable is a dichotomy

Original Paper

Abstract

The article argues against the popular belief that linear regression should not be used when the dependent variable is a dichotomy. The relevance of the statistical arguments against linear analyses, that the tests of significance are inappropriate and that one risk getting meaningless results, are disputed. Violating the homoscedasticity assumption seems to be of little practical importance, as an empirical comparison of results shows nearly identical outcomes for the two kinds of significance tests. When linear analysis of dichotomous dependent variables is seen as acceptable, there in many situations exist compelling arguments of a substantive nature for preferring this approach to logistic regression. Of special importance is the intuitive meaningfulness of the linear measures as differences in probabilities, and their applicability in causal (path) analysis, in contrast to the logistic measures.

Keywords

Logistic regression Binary variables Significance tests 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Boyle R.P. (1966). Causal theory and statistical measures of effect: a convergence. Am. Sociol. Rev. 31: 843–851 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Davis J.A. and Schooler S.R. (1974). Nonparametric path analysis—the multivariate structure of dichotomous data when using the odds ratio or Yule’s Q. Soc. Sci. Res. 3: 267–297 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Fox J. (1997). Applied Regression Analysis, Linear Models and Related Methods. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA Google Scholar
  4. Greene W.H. (1993). Econometric Analysis. Macmillan Publishing Company, New York Google Scholar
  5. Heath A., Jowell R. and Curtice J. (1987). Trendless fluctuation: a reply to Crewe. Polit. Stud. 35: 256–277 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Heath A., Mills C., Roberts J.: Towards meritocracy? Recent evidence on an old problem. In: Crouch C., Heath A. (eds) Social Research and Social Reform: Essays in Honour of A.H. Halsey. Clarendon Press, Oxford (1992)Google Scholar
  7. Hellevik O. (1983). Decomposing proportions and differences in proportions: approaches to contingency table analysis. Qual. Quant. 40: 79–111 Google Scholar
  8. Hellevik O.(1984) Introduction to Causal Analysis. Exploring Survey Data by Crosstabulation. London: George Allen & Unwin; (1988. Oslo: Norwegian University Press).Google Scholar
  9. Hellevik O. (1996). Fagkritikk av oppdragsforskning. Sosiologisk tidsskrift 4: 219–228 Google Scholar
  10. Hellevik O. (1997). Class inequality and egalitarian reform. Acta Sociologica 40: 377–397 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hellevik O. (2000). A less biased allocation mechanism. Acta Sociologica 43: 81–83 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hellevik O. (2002). Inequality versus association in educational attainment research:. comment on Kivinen, Ahola and Hedman. Acta Sociologica 45: 151–158 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hosmer D.W. and Lemeshow S. (1989). Applied Logistic Regression. John Wiley & Sons, New York Google Scholar
  14. Kanagy C.L., Humphrey C.R. and Firebaugh G. (1994). Surging environmentalism: changing public opinion or changing public? Soc. Sci. Quart. 75: 804–819 Google Scholar
  15. Kivinen O., Ahola S. and Hedman J. (2001). Expanding education and improving odds. Participation in higher education in Finland in the 1980s and 1990s. Acta Sociologica 44: 171–181 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lægreid P. and Olsen J.P. (1978). Byråkrati og beslutninger: En studie av norske departement. Universitetsforlaget, Oslo Google Scholar
  17. Reynolds H.T. (1977). The Analysis of Cross-Classifications. Free Press, New York Google Scholar
  18. Rothman K.J. (1986). Modern Epidemiology. Little, Brown and Company, Boston Google Scholar
  19. Rothman, K.J., Greenland, S. (eds.): Modern Epidemiology, 2nd edn. Lippincott-Raven Publishers, Philadelphia (1998)Google Scholar
  20. Rubin D.B. (1997). Estimating causal effects from large data sets using propensity scores. Ann. Internal Med. 127: 757–763 Google Scholar
  21. Skog O-J. (1998). Å forklare sosiale fenomener. En regresjonsbasert tilnærming. Ad Notam Gyldendal, Oslo Google Scholar
  22. Veierød M.B., Weiderpass E., Thörn M., Hansson J., Lund E., Armstrong B. and Adami H-O. (2003). A prospective study of pigmentation, sun exposure, and risk of cutaneous malignant melanoma in women. J. Nat. Cancer Inst. 95: 1530–1538 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of OsloBlindernNorway

Personalised recommendations