Ordinary Least Squares Regression of Ordered Categorical Data: Inferential Implications for Practice

  • Beth Larrabee
  • H. Morgan Scott
  • Nora M. Bello
Original Article


Ordered categorical variables are frequently encountered as response variables in many disciplines. Agricultural examples include quality assessments of soil or food products, and evaluation of lesion severity, such as teat ends status in dairy cattle. Ordered categorical responses (OCR) are characterized by multiple levels recorded on a ranked scale, whereby levels appraise order but may not be informative of relative magnitude or proportionality between levels. A number of statistically sound methods are available in the standard toolbox to deal with OCR, such as constrained cumulative logit and probit models; however, these are commonly underutilized in practice. Instead, ordinary least squares linear regression (OLSLR) is often employed to infer upon OCR, despite violation of basic model assumptions. In this study, we investigate the inferential implications of OLSLR-based inference on OCR using simulated data to explore realized Type I error rate and realized statistical power under a variety of scenarios. The design of the simulation study was motivated by a data application, thus considering increasing number of levels and various frequency distributions of the OCR. We then illustrate inferential performance of OLSLR relative to a probit regression model fitted to an OCR using a survey dataset of veterinarian antimicrobial use in cattle feedlots. This article has supplementary material online.

Key Words

Type I error Statistical power Violation of assumptions 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Supplementary material


  1. Abreu, M. N. S., Siqueira, A. L., Cardoso, C. S., and Caiaffa, W. T. (2008), “Ordered Categorical Logistic Regression Models: Application in Quality of Life Studies,” Cadernos de Saude Publica, 24, s581–s591. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ajzen, I. (1991), “The Theory of Planned Behavior,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ajzen, I. (2012), “The Theory of Planned Behavior,” in Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology, Vol. 1, eds. P. A. M. Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, and E. T. Higgins, London: Sage, pp. 438–459. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. De Groote, H., et al. (2010), “Participatory Evaluation of Integrated Pest and Soil Fertility Management Options Using Ordered Categorical Data Analysis,” Agricultural Systems, 103, 233–244. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dean, W. R., McIntosh, W. A., Scott, H. M., and Barling, K. S. (2011), “The Role of Trust and Moral Obligation in Beef Cattle Feedlot Veterinarians’ Contingent Adoption of Antibiotic Metaphylaxis Recommendations,” International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food, 18, 104–120. Google Scholar
  6. Glass, G. V., Peckham, P. D., and Sanders, J. R. (1972), “Consequences of Failure to Meet Assumptions Underlying the Fixed Effects Analyses of Variance and Covariance,” Review of Educational Research, 42, 237. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hernandez, P., et al. (2005), “A Bayesian Approach to the Effect of Selection for Growth Rate on Sensory Meat Quality of Rabbit,” Meat Science, 69, 123–127. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hsu, T., and Feldt, L. S. (1969), “The Effect of Limitations on the Number of Criterion Score Values on the Significance Level of the F-Test,” American Educational Research Journal, 6, 515–527. Google Scholar
  9. Javaras, K. N., and Ripley, B. D. (2007), “An “Unfolding” Latent Variable Model for Likert Attitude Data: Drawing Inferences Adjusted for Response Style,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 102, 454–463. CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. Kutner, M., Nachtsheim, C. J., Neter, C. J., and Li, W. (2005), Applied Linear Statistical Models, Boston: McGraw-Hill Irwin. Google Scholar
  11. Liu, I., and Agresti, A. (2005), “The Analysis of Ordered Categorical Data: An Overview and a Survey of Recent Developments,” Test, 14, 1–73. CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. Long, J. S. (1997), Regression Models for Categorical and Limited Dependent Variables, Sage: Thousand Oaks. MATHGoogle Scholar
  13. McIntosh, W. A., et al. (2009), “Feedlot Veterinarians’ Morale and Instrumental Beliefs Regarding Antimicrobial Use in Feedlot Cattle,” Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 19, 51–67. CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. R Development Core Team (2009), R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing, Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. ISBN 3-900051-07-0. Google Scholar
  15. Radostits, O. M. (2001), Herd Health: Food Animal Production Medicine (3 ed.), Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Company, pp. 397–433. Google Scholar
  16. Russell, C. J., and Bobko, P. (1992), “Moderated Regression Analysis and Likert Scales: Too Coarse for Comfort,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 336–342. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Wright, S. (1934), “An Analysis of Variability in Number of Digits in an Inbred Strain of Guinea Pigs,” Genetics, 19, 506–536. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Biometric Society 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Beth Larrabee
    • 1
  • H. Morgan Scott
    • 2
  • Nora M. Bello
    • 3
  1. 1.Mayo FoundationRochesterUSA
  2. 2.Department of Diagnostic Medicine/Pathobiology, College of Veterinary MedicineKansas State UniversityManhattanUSA
  3. 3.Department of StatisticsKansas State UniversityManhattanUSA

Personalised recommendations