Advertisement

Factors associated with sensitive regression weights: A fungible parameter approach

  • Robert A. AglerEmail author
  • Paul De Boeck
Article

Abstract

Sensitive parameters serve as a weak foundation for scientific inferences, because they provide less certainty about the accuracy and trustworthiness of the estimated model. Fungible weights may be used to examine parameter sensitivity by looking at how much sets of interchangeable, slightly suboptimal linear regression weights, all of which yield an identical, slightly reduced value of R2, differ from the optimal OLS weights. We find that in the two-predictor case, the range of a predictor’s fungible weights is almost completely explained by the absolute value of the correlation of the other predictor with the criterion variable (R2 = .990); an interaction with the variance inflation factor (VIF) yields R2 = 1. In the more complicated three-predictor case, the effects of the other two correlations yield R2 = .839, and including the predictor’s VIF and its interactions yields R2 = .910. The effects observed occur because alternative predictors with a high correlation with the criterion, or with each other, can compensate for the changes to a predictor’s weight while still yielding similar predicted values. An R function is provided to calculate the range of fungible weights for a given covariance matrix. We close with a discussion of some important implications of our results regarding parameter sensitivity and the trustworthiness of effect estimates.

Keywords

Fungible weights Parameter sensitivity Linear regression 

Notes

References

  1. Box, G. E. (1976). Science and statistics. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 71, 791–799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Edwards, M. C. (2013). Purple unicorns, true models, and other things I’ve never seen. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 11, 107–111.Google Scholar
  3. Green, B. F. (1977). Parameter sensitivity in multivariate methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 12, 263–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  5. Jaccard, J., & Wan, C. K. (1995). Measurement error in the analysis of interaction effects between continuous predictors using multiple regression: Multiple indicator and structural equation approaches. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 348–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Jones, J. A. (2013). Fungible weights in logistic regression (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.Google Scholar
  7. Jones, J. A., & Waller, N. G. (2016). Fungible weights in logistic regression. Psychological Methods, 21, 241–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Lee, T., MacCallum, R. C., & Browne, M. W. (2018). Fungible parameter estimates in structural equation modeling. Psychological Methods, 23, 58–75. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000130 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Pek, J., Chalmers, R. P., & Monette, G. (2016). On the relationship between confidence sets and exchangeable weights in multiple linear regression. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 51, 719–739.Google Scholar
  10. R Core Team (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org/ Google Scholar
  11. Sobel, M. E. (2008). Identification of causal parameters in randomized studies with mediating variables. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 33, 230–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Waller, N. G. (2008). Fungible weights in multiple regression. Psychometrika, 73, 691–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Waller, N. G., & Jones, J. A. (2009). Locating the extrema of fungible regression weights. Psychometrika, 74, 589–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Waller, N., & Jones, J. (2011). Investigating the performance of alternate regression weights by studying all possible criteria in regression models with a fixed set of predictors. Psychometrika, 76, 410–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Public Health, Division of EpidemiologyThe Ohio State UniversityColumbusUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyThe Ohio State UniversityColumbusUSA
  3. 3.KU LeuvenLeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations