Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
An odds ratio isn’t a probability, though. It’s a ratio of odds, and odds are a ratio of probabilities. I wasn’t sure if the OP wanted to model the probability– I assumed he had only one variable and wanted a CI for the true proportion of the population with that characteristic.ink wrote:
yes, you can. for instance, when you do a logistic regression for your binary data, you get this thing called odds ratio after exponentiating your coefficient (see more in Level II) ; The (exponentiated) slope coefficient in a logistic regression is also interpreted as a multiplicative change in the odds, given a one unit increase in the IV.
For instance, you could say that men are 4 [95% CI: 2-6] times more likely to reads Sports magazine relative to women.
-the 4 represents the estimate from the odds ratio
- the 95% CI: indicates that the estimate will fall between 2-6 in about 95% of the cases if you used the same number of subjects in order to perform your study This isn’t a proper interpretation of a confidence interval. The interval isn’t allowing us to discern where the estimate is likely to be, it is letting us know about the population parameter and it’s probable location. If you wanted to practically interpret it, you would say that there is a 95% level of confidence that the true odds ratio for (whatever it is you’re measuring) will fall between 2 and 6. The confidence level, 95%, refers to the long run number of intervals that would contain the true odds ratio. In other words, if you conducted infinite samples and calculated all possible intervals for the parameter of interest, 95% of those intervals would be “correct” in that they actually capture the true value of the parameter (nothing to do with the estimate) somewhere within the upper and lower bounds of the interval.
Your additions about the CI are correct; the 95% CI will tell us that we expect 95% of the interval estimates to include the true population parameter, if we carried an infinetly many studies. Or another way I’ve seen it often formulated: you are 95% confident that the true mean is between lower-upper intervaltickersu wrote:
An odds ratio isn’t a probability, though. It’s a ratio of odds, and odds are a ratio of probabilities. I wasn’t sure if the OP wanted to model the probability– I assumed he had only one variable and wanted a CI for the true proportion of the population with that characteristic.ink wrote:
yes, you can. for instance, when you do a logistic regression for your binary data, you get this thing called odds ratio after exponentiating your coefficient (see more in Level II) ; The (exponentiated) slope coefficient in a logistic regression is also interpreted as a multiplicative change in the odds, given a one unit increase in the IV.
For instance, you could say that men are 4 [95% CI: 2-6] times more likely to reads Sports magazine relative to women.
-the 4 represents the estimate from the odds ratio
- the 95% CI: indicates that the estimate will fall between 2-6 in about 95% of the cases if you used the same number of subjects in order to perform your study This isn’t a proper interpretation of a confidence interval. The interval isn’t allowing us to discern where the estimate is likely to be, it is letting us know about the population parameter and it’s probable location. If you wanted to practically interpret it, you would say that there is a 95% level of confidence that the true odds ratio for (whatever it is you’re measuring) will fall between 2 and 6. The confidence level, 95%, refers to the long run number of intervals that would contain the true odds ratio. In other words, if you conducted infinite samples and calculated all possible intervals for the parameter of interest, 95% of those intervals would be “correct” in that they actually capture the true value of the parameter (nothing to do with the estimate) somewhere within the upper and lower bounds of the interval.
Edit: completely glossed over a few points before, and I mixed up a few points as a result. Now, the bold has my replies, and I fixed my mistakes…the end of a long day.
That’s essentially what I meant by “there is a 95% level of confidence that the true odds ratio for (whatever it is you’re measuring) will fall between 2 and 6.” We are X% confident that the true parameter value will fall between lower-upperbound (units of measure if applicable)– almost identical to yours!ink wrote:
Your additions about the CI are correct; the 95% CI will tell us that we expect 95% of the interval estimates to include the true population parameter, if we carried an infinetly many studies. Or another way I’ve seen it often formulated: you are 95% confident that the true mean is between lower-upper intervaltickersu wrote:
An odds ratio isn’t a probability, though. It’s a ratio of odds, and odds are a ratio of probabilities. I wasn’t sure if the OP wanted to model the probability– I assumed he had only one variable and wanted a CI for the true proportion of the population with that characteristic.ink wrote:
yes, you can. for instance, when you do a logistic regression for your binary data, you get this thing called odds ratio after exponentiating your coefficient (see more in Level II) ; The (exponentiated) slope coefficient in a logistic regression is also interpreted as a multiplicative change in the odds, given a one unit increase in the IV.
For instance, you could say that men are 4 [95% CI: 2-6] times more likely to reads Sports magazine relative to women.
-the 4 represents the estimate from the odds ratio
- the 95% CI: indicates that the estimate will fall between 2-6 in about 95% of the cases if you used the same number of subjects in order to perform your study This isn’t a proper interpretation of a confidence interval. The interval isn’t allowing us to discern where the estimate is likely to be, it is letting us know about the population parameter and it’s probable location. If you wanted to practically interpret it, you would say that there is a 95% level of confidence that the true odds ratio for (whatever it is you’re measuring) will fall between 2 and 6. The confidence level, 95%, refers to the long run number of intervals that would contain the true odds ratio. In other words, if you conducted infinite samples and calculated all possible intervals for the parameter of interest, 95% of those intervals would be “correct” in that they actually capture the true value of the parameter (nothing to do with the estimate) somewhere within the upper and lower bounds of the interval.
Edit: completely glossed over a few points before, and I mixed up a few points as a result. Now, the bold has my replies, and I fixed my mistakes…the end of a long day.