null value, which supports the statistical significance
found in Exercise 13.
If unconditional ML estimation had been used, the
odds ratio estimate would be higher (i.e., an overesti-
mate) than the estimate obtained using conditional
ML estimation. In particular, because the study
involved pair-matching, the unconditional odds ratio
is the square of the conditional odds ratio estimate.
Thus, for this dataset, the conditional estimate is
given byMOR equal to 2, whereas the unconditionald
estimate is given by the square of 2 or 4. The correct
estimate is 2, not 4.
logit PðXÞ¼aþbCONþ~
99
i¼ 1
g 1 iV 1 iþg 21 NPþg 22 ASCM
þg 23 PARþdCONPAR;
where theV 1 iare 99 dummy variables indicating the
100 matching strata, with each stratum containing
three observations.
- RORd ¼exp ^bþ^dPAR
.
- A recommended strategy for model building involves
first testing for the significance of the interaction term
in the starting model given in Exercise 16. If this test is
significant, then the final model must contain the
interaction term, the main effect of PAR (from the
Hierarchy Principle), and the 99 dummy variables
for matching. The other two variables NP and ASCM
may be dropped as nonconfounders if the odds ratio
given by Exercise 17 does not meaningfully change
when either or both variables are removed from the
model. If the interaction test is not significant, then
the reduced (no interaction) model is given by the
expression
logit PðXÞ¼aþbCONþ~
99
i¼ 1
g 1 iV 1 iþg 21 NP
þg 22 ASCMþg 23 PAR:
Using this reduced model, the odds ratio formula is
given by exp(b), wherebis the coefficient of the CON
variable. The final model must contain the 99 dummy
variables which incorporate the matching into the
model. However, NP, ASCM, and/or PAR may be
dropped as nonconfounders if the odds ratio exp(b)
does not change when one or more of these three
variables are dropped from the model. Finally, preci-
sion of the estimate needs to be considered by
Answers to Practice Exercises 427