Element contents
Interpreting Discrete Choice Models
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 April 2022
Summary
In discrete choice models the relationships between the independent variables and the choice probabilities are nonlinear, depending on both the value of the particular independent variable being interpreted and the values of the other independent variables. Thus, interpreting the magnitude of the effects (the “substantive effects”) of the independent variables on choice behavior requires the use of additional interpretative techniques. Three common techniques for interpretation are described here: first differences, marginal effects and elasticities, and odds ratios. Concepts related to these techniques are also discussed, as well as methods to account for estimation uncertainty. Interpretation of binary logits, ordered logits, multinomial and conditional logits, and mixed discrete choice models such as mixed multinomial logits and random effects logits for panel data are covered in detail. The techniques discussed here are general, and can be applied to other models with discrete dependent variables which are not specifically described here.
Information
- Type
- Element
- Information
- Online ISBN: 9781108873000Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication: 12 May 2022
References
Agresti, Alan. 2013. Categorical Data Analysis. Third ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Ai, Chunrong and Norton, Edward C.. 2003. “Interaction terms in logit and probit models.” Economics Letters 80:123–129.Google Scholar
American Automobile Association. 2008. Your Driving Costs: 2008 Edition. Heathrow, FL: AAA Association Communication.Google Scholar
Ben-Akiva, Moshe and Lerman, Steven R.. 1985. Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cosco Busan Oil Spill Trustees. 2012. Oil Spill Final Damage Assessment and Restoration Plan/Environmental Assessment. California Department of Fish and Game, California State Lands Commission, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management.Google Scholar
Daly, Andrew, Hess, Stephane, and Train, Kenneth. 2011. “Assuring finite moments for willingness to pay in random coefficient models.” Transportation 39:19–31.Google Scholar
Davison, Anthony C. and Hinkley, David V.. 1997. Bootstrap Methods and Their Application. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Diaconis, Persi and Efron, Bradley. 1983. “Computer-intensive methods in statistics.” Scientific American 248:116–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowd, Bryan E. , Greene, William H., and Norton, Edward C.. 2014. “Computation of standard errors.” Health Services Research 49:731–750.Google Scholar
Easterly, William. 2006. The White Man’s Burden: Why the West’s Efforts to Aid the Rest Have Done So Much Ill and So Little Good. New York: Penguin Press.Google Scholar
Efron, Bradley and Gong, Gail. 1983. “A leisurely look at the bootstrap, the jackknife, and cross-validation.” The American Statistician 37:36–48.Google Scholar
Efron, Bradley and Tibshirani, Robert J.. 1994. An Introduction to the Bootstrap. New York: Chapman & Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
English, Eric. 2010. Cosco Busan Natural Resource Damage Assessment, Appendix J: Damage Estimate for Shoreline Recreation. Boulder, CO: Stratus Consulting.Google Scholar
Fieldhouse, Ed, Green, Jane, Evans, Geoff, Schmitt, Hermann, Eijk, Cees van der, Mellon, Jon, and Prosser, Chris. 2015. British Election Study: Internet Panel, Waves 1–13. Manchester, UK: British Election Study.Google Scholar
Fieldhouse, Ed, Green, Jane, Evans, Geoff, Schmitt, Hermann, Eijk, Cees van der, Mellon, Jon, and Prosser, Chris. 2016. British Election Study, 2015: Face-to-Face Post-Election Survey. Manchester, UK: British Election Study.Google Scholar
Gelman, Andrew and Hill, Jennifer. 2007. Data Analysis Using Regression and Multilevel/Hierarchical Models. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Glasgow, Garrett and Train, Kenneth. 2018. “Lost use-value from environmental injury when visitation drops at undamaged sites.” Land Economics 94:87–96.Google Scholar
Glasgow, Garrett, Golder, Matt, and Golder, Sona. 2012. “New empirical strategies for the study of parliamentary government formation.” Political Analysis 20:248–270.Google Scholar
Glasgow, Garrett, Lewis, Paul G., and Neiman, Max. 2012. “Local development policies and the foreclosure crisis in California: Can local policies hold back national tides?” Urban Affairs Review 48:64–85.Google Scholar
Greene, William H. and Hensher, David A.. 2010. Modeling Ordered Choices: A Primer. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hawkins, Oliver, Keen, Richard, and Nakatudde, Nambassa. 2015. “General Election 2015.” House of Commons Library Briefing Paper CBP–7186:July 28, 2015. London: House of Commons.Google Scholar
Hedeker, Donald, Toit, Stephen du, Demirtas, Hakan, and Gibbons, Robert D.. 2018. “A note on marginalization of regression parameters from mixed models of binary outcomes.” Biometrics 74:354–361.Google Scholar
Hensher, David A. , Rose, John M., and Greene, William H.. 2015. Applied Choice Analysis. Second ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herron, Michael. 1999. “Postestimation uncertainty in limited dependent variable models.” Political Analysis 8:83–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hole, Arne Risa. 2007. “A comparison of approaches to estimating confidence intervals for willingness to pay measures.” Health Economics 16:827–840.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Karaca-Mandic, Pinar, Norton, Edward C., and Dowd, Bryan. 2012. “Interaction terms in nonlinear models.” Health Services Research 47:255–274.Google Scholar
Kiewiet, D. Roderick. 1983. Macroeconomics and Micropolitics: The Electoral Effects of Economic Issues. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kinder, Donald R. and Kiewiet, D. Roderick. 1981. “Sociotropic politics: The American case.” British Journal of Political Science 11:129–162.Google Scholar
King, Gary, Tomz, Michael, and Wittenberg, Jason. 2000. “Making the most of statistical analyses: improving interpretation and presentation.” American Journal of Political Science 44:347–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krinsky, Itzhak and Robb, A. Leslie. 1986. “On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities.” The Review of Economics and Statistics 68:715–719.Google Scholar
Krinsky, Itzhak and Robb, A. Leslie. 1990. “On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities: A correction.” The Review of Economics and Statistics 72:189–190.Google Scholar
Lewis-Beck, Michael S. 1988. Economics and Elections. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Lewis-Beck, Michael S. and Paldam, Martin. 2000. “Economic voting: An introduction.” Electoral Studies 19:113–121.Google Scholar
Liang, Kung-Yee and Zeger, Scott L.. 1986. “Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models.” Biometrika 73:13–22.Google Scholar
Long, J. Scott. 1997. Regression Models for Categorical and Limited Dependent Variables. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Louviere, Jordan J. , Hensher, David A., and Swait, Joffre D.. 2000. Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Application. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mandel, Micha. 2013. “Simulation-based confidence intervals for functions with complicated derivatives.” The American Statistician 67:76–81.Google Scholar
Manski, Charles F. 1995. Identification Problems in the Social Sciences. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
McCullagh, Peter and Nelder, John A.. 1989. Generalized Linear Models. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC.Google Scholar
McInnes, Roderick, Ayers, Steven, and Hawkins, Oliver. 2014.“Scottish Independence Referendum 2014.” House of Commons Library Briefing Paper RP 14–50:September 30, 2014. London: House of Commons.Google Scholar
Norton, Edward C. , Wang, Hua, and Ai, Chunrong. 2004. “Computing interaction effects and standard errors in logit and probit models.” The Stata Journal 4:154–167.Google Scholar
Oehlert, Gary W. 1992. “A note on the delta method.” The American Statistician 46:27–29.Google Scholar
Poe, Gregory L. , Giraud, Kelly L., and Loomis, John B.. 2005. “Computational methods for measuring the difference of empirical distributions.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 87:353–365.Google Scholar
Press, William H. , Teukolsky, Saul A., Vetterling, William T., and Flannery, Brian P.. 2007. Numerical Recipes: The Art of Scientific Computing. Third ed. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Puhani, Patrick A. 2012. “The treatment effect, the cross difference, and the interaction term in nonlinear “difference-in-differences” models.” Economics Letters 115:85–87.Google Scholar
R Core Team. 2021. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. www.R-project.org/Google Scholar
Sachs, Jeffrey. 2005. The End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities for Our Time. New York: Penguin Press.Google Scholar
Small, Kenneth A. and Rosen, Harvey S.. 1981. “Applied welfare economics with discrete choice models.” Econometrica 49:105–130.Google Scholar
The American National Election Studies (ANES). 2019. ANES 2016 Time Series Study. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.Google Scholar
Train, Kenneth E. 2009. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation. Second ed. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Uberoi, Elise. 2016. “European Union Referendum 2016.” House of Commons Library Briefing Paper CBP–7639:June 29, 2016. London: House of Commons.Google Scholar
Uganda Bureau of Statistics. 2015. Uganda Malaria Indicator Survey, 2014–2015. Kampala, Uganda, and Rockville, MD: Uganda Bureau of Statistics and ICF International.Google Scholar
United Kingdom Independence Party. 2015. Believe in Britain: UKIP Manifesto 2015. Newton Abbot, UK: United Kingdom Independence Party.Google Scholar
Ver Hoef, Jay M. 2012. “Who invented the delta method?” The American Statistician 66:124–127.Google Scholar
Ward, Michael D. and Ahlquist, John S.. 2018. Maximum Likelihood for Social Science: Strategies for Analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Zeger, Scott L. , Liang, Kung-Yee, and Albert, Paul S.. 1988. “Models for longitudinal data: A generalized estimating equation approach.” Biometrics 44:1049–1060.Google Scholar
Accessibility standard: Unknown
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
Accessibility compliance for the HTML of this element is currently unknown
and may be updated in the future.