2004
DOI: 10.4135/9781483348834
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Regression Analysis: A Constructive Critique

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
196
0
5

Year Published

2005
2005
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 309 publications
(203 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
2
196
0
5
Order By: Relevance
“…The nonrandom assignment to prior stop conditions is a problem common in observational studies (see Berk 2003), and requires the estimation of additional parameters to avoid common selection problems. Following Berk ) and others (Bang & Robins 2005;Indurkhya et al 2006;Rosenbaum & Rubin 1983), we use propensity scores to adjust for this problem.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The nonrandom assignment to prior stop conditions is a problem common in observational studies (see Berk 2003), and requires the estimation of additional parameters to avoid common selection problems. Following Berk ) and others (Bang & Robins 2005;Indurkhya et al 2006;Rosenbaum & Rubin 1983), we use propensity scores to adjust for this problem.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…If one can also make the case that the structure of a model is very nearly right, and one has either random sampling or credible-model based sampling [Berk, 2003], conventional ways of representing uncertainty apply. Our suggestions for obtaining useful estimates of the standard errors are then appropriate.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In particular, confidence intervals and tests no longer have much probative value. Rather, one should develop models that are descriptively informative and relatively simple and that capture in broad-brush strokes the essential features of the empirical world at hand [ Berk, 2003].…”
Section: Extensions Of Multilevel Modelingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We take the descriptions of the two experiments, including the assumptions about the response schedules and the random errors, as background information. In particular, we take it that Nature generates Y as if by substituting X into (9). Nature proceeds to generate Z as if by substituting X and Y -the same Y that has just been generated from X -into (10).…”
Section: Second Hypothetical Experimentmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The model gives a clearer meaning to this idea, and to the idea of 'stability under intervention'. The parameters in Figure 4, for instance, are defined through the response schedules (9) and (10), separately from the data. These parameters are constant across subjects and levels of treatment (by assumption, of course).…”
Section: Second Hypothetical Experimentmentioning
confidence: 99%