13.11.2012 Views

Introduction to Categorical Data Analysis

Introduction to Categorical Data Analysis

Introduction to Categorical Data Analysis

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

90 GENERALIZED LINEAR MODELS<br />

Table 3.5. Types of Generalized Linear Models for Statistical <strong>Analysis</strong><br />

Random Systematic<br />

Component Link Component Model Chapter<br />

Normal Identity Continuous Regression<br />

Normal Identity <strong>Categorical</strong> <strong>Analysis</strong> of variance<br />

Normal Identity Mixed <strong>Analysis</strong> of covariance<br />

Binomial Logit Mixed Logistic regression 4–5, 8–10<br />

Multinomial Logits Mixed Multinomial response 6, 8–10<br />

Poisson Log Mixed Loglinear 7<br />

3.5.3 Advantages of GLMs<br />

The development of GLM theory in the mid-1970s unified important models for<br />

continuous and categorical response variables. Table 3.5 lists several popular GLMs<br />

for practical application.<br />

A nice feature of GLMs is that the model-fitting algorithm, Fisher scoring, is the<br />

same for any GLM. This holds regardless of the choice of distribution for Y or link<br />

function. Therefore, GLM software can fit a very wide variety of useful models.<br />

PROBLEMS<br />

3.1 Describe the purpose of the link function of a GLM. Define the identity link,<br />

and explain why it is not often used with the binomial parameter.<br />

3.2 In the 2000 US Presidential election, Palm Beach County in Florida was the<br />

focus of unusual voting patterns apparently caused by a confusing “butterfly<br />

ballot.” Many voters claimed they voted mistakenly for the Reform party<br />

candidate, Pat Buchanan, when they intended <strong>to</strong> vote for Al Gore. Figure 3.8<br />

shows the <strong>to</strong>tal number of votes for Buchanan plotted against the number of<br />

votes for the Reform party candidate in 1996 (Ross Perot), by county in Florida.<br />

(For details, see A. Agresti and B. Presnell, Statist. Sci., 17: 436–440, 2003.)<br />

a. In county i, let πi denote the proportion of the vote for Buchanan and<br />

let xi denote the proportion of the vote for Perot in 1996. For the linear<br />

probability model fitted <strong>to</strong> all counties except Palm Beach County,<br />

ˆπi =−0.0003 + 0.0304xi. Give the value of P in the interpretation: The<br />

estimated proportion vote for Buchanan in 2000 was roughly P % of that<br />

for Perot in 1996.<br />

b. For Palm Beach County, πi = 0.0079 and xi = 0.0774. Does this result<br />

appear <strong>to</strong> be an outlier? Investigate, by finding πi/ ˆπi and πi −ˆπi. (Analyses<br />

conducted by statisticians predicted that fewer than 900 votes were<br />

truly intended for Buchanan, compared with the 3407 he received. George<br />

W. Bush won the state by 537 votes and, with it, the Elec<strong>to</strong>ral College and

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!