Pred¼obs for each g
ðphat¼pÞ
+
d^g¼dgcases
EXAMPLE
Fully parameterized model
(w/o conts. Xs):
Above results support its use as
gold standard for assessing GOF
HL statistic always 0 when
perfect group prediction
Second illustration
(Evans County data):
Model EC3(no interaction):
logit PðXÞ¼aþbCATþg 1 AGE
þg 2 ECGþg 3 SMK
þg 4 CHLþg 5 HPT
Model EC4:
logit PðXÞ¼aþbCATþg 1 AGE
þg 2 ECGþg 3 SMK
þg 4 CHLþg 5 HPT
þd 1 CATCHL
þd 2 CATHPT
Yet, as the table of probabilities indicates,
Model EC2 perfectly predicts the observed
probabilities obtained for each covariate pat-
tern. Equivalently, then, this model perfectly
predicts the observed number of cases (dg)
corresponding to each covariate pattern.
When none of the predictors are continuous, as
with these data, these results support the use of
a fully parameterized model defined from all
covariate patterns as the gold standard model
for assessing GOF. In particular, the HL statistic
reflects this framework, since the value of HL
will always be zero whenever there is perfect
group, rather than subject-specific, prediction.
We now provide a second illustration of GOF
assessment using the Evans County data (see
Computer Appendix) with models that involve
continuous variables. In particular, we con-
sider two previously considered models (see
Chap. 7) shown on the left that involve the
predictors CAT, AGE, ECG, SMK, CHL, and
HPT. Here, AGE and CHL are continuous,
whereas CAT, ECG, SMK, and HPT are binary
variables.
EXAMPLE
AGE and CHL continuous
+
Few subjects with identical values for
both AGE and CHL
+
Gnð¼ 609 Þ
SASs Proc Logistic automatically
outputs “Number of Unique
Profiles” (G)
Here,G¼ 599
Since both models EC3 and EC4 contain con-
tinuous variables AGE and CHL, there are not
likely to be many of the 609 subjects with iden-
tically the same values for these two variables.
Consequently, the number of covariate pat-
terns (G) for each model should be close to
the sample size of 609.
In fact, SASs Logistic procedure automatically
outputs this number (identified in the output
as the “number of unique profiles”), which
turns out to be 599 (see output, below left),
i.e.,G¼599.
Presentation: V. Examples of the HL Statistic 323