Binary Logistic Regression

with SPSS/PASW
Karl L. Wuensch
Dept of Psychology
East Carolina University
Download the Instructional
Document
http://core.ecu.edu/psyc/wuenschk/SPSS/
SPSS-MV.htm .
Click on Binary Logistic Regression .
Save to desktop.
Open the document.

When to Use Binary Logistic Regression
The criterion variable is dichotomous.
Predictor variables may be categorical or
continuous.
If predictors are all continuous and nicely
distributed, may use discriminant function
analysis.
If predictors are all categorical, may use
logit analysis.
Wuensch & Poteat, 1998
Cats being used as research subjects.
Stereotaxic surgery.
Subjects pretend they are on university
research committee.
Complaint filed by animal rights group.
Vote to stop or continue the research.
Purpose of the Research
Cosmetic
Theory Testing
Meat Production
Veterinary
Medical
Predictor Variables
Gender
Ethical Idealism (9-point Likert)
Ethical Relativism (9-point Likert)
Purpose of the Research

Model 1: Decision = Gender
Decision 0 = stop, 1 = continue
Gender 0 = female, 1 = male
Model is .. logit =



is the predicted probability of the event
which is coded with 1 (continue the research)
rather than with 0 (stop the research).
( ) bX a
Y
Y
ODDS + =
|
|
.
|

\
|

ln ln
Y

Iterative Maximum Likelihood

Procedure
SPSS starts with arbitrary regression
coefficents.
Tinkers with the regression coefficients to
find those which best reduce error.
Converges on final model.

SPSS
Bring the data into SPSS
http://core.ecu.edu/psyc/wuenschk/SPSS/
Logistic.sav




Analyze, Regression, Binary Logistic

Decision Dependent
Gender Covariate(s), OK
Look at the Output






We have 315 cases.
Case Processing Summary
315 100.0
0 .0
315 100.0
0 .0
315 100.0
Unweighted Cases
a
Included in Analysis
Missing Cases
Total
Selected Cases
Unselected Cases
Total
N Percent
If weight is in ef f ect, see classif ication table f or the total
number of cases.
a.
Block 0 Model, Odds
Look at Variables in the Equation.
The model contains only the intercept
(constant, B
0
), a function of the marginal
distribution of the decisions.



Variables in the Equation
-.379 .115 10.919 1 .001 .684 Constant Step 0
B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)
( ) 379 .

ln ln =
|
|
.
|

\
|

=
Y
Y
ODDS
Exponentiate Both Sides
Exponentiate both sides of the equation:
e
-.379
= .684 = Exp(B
0
) = odds of deciding to
continue the research.




128 voted to continue the research, 187 to stop
it.
187
128
684 . ) 379 . (

= = =

Exp
Y
Y
Probabilities
Randomly select one participant.
P(votes continue) = 128/315 = 40.6%
P(votes stop) = 187/315 = 59.4%
Odds = 40.6/59.4 = .684
Repeatedly sample one participant and
guess how e will vote.
Humans vs. Goldfish
Humans Match Probabilities
(suppose p = .7, q = .3)
.7(.7) + .3(.3) = .49 + .09 = .58
Goldfish Maximize Probabilities
.7(1) = .70
The goldfish win!
SPSS Model 0 vs. Goldfish
Look at the Classification Table for Block 0.





SPSS Predicts STOP for every participant.
SPSS is as smart as a Goldfish here.


Classification Table
a,b
187 0 100.0
128 0 .0
59.4
Observed
stop
continue
decision
Overall Percentage
Step 0
stop continue
decision
Percentage
Correct
Predicted
Constant is included in the model.
a.
The cut value is .500
b.
Block 1 Model
Gender has now been added to the model.
Model Summary: -2 Log Likelihood = how
poorly model fits the data.


Model Summary
399.913
a
.078 .106
Step
1
-2 Log
likelihood
Cox & Snell
R Square
Nagelkerke
R Square
Estimation terminated at iteration number 3 because
parameter estimates changed by less than .001.
a.
Block 1 Model

For intercept only, -2LL = 425.666.
Add gender and -2LL = 399.913.
Omnibus Tests: Drop in -2LL = 25.653 =
Model _
2
.

df = 1, p < .001.
Omnibus Tests of Model Coefficients
25.653 1 .000
25.653 1 .000
25.653 1 .000
Step
Block
Model
Step 1
Chi-square df Sig.
Variables in the Equation
ln(odds) = -.847 + 1.217-Gender








Gender b a
e ODDS
- +
=
Variables in the Equation
1.217 .245 24.757 1 .000 3.376
-.847 .154 30.152 1 .000 .429
gender
Constant
Step
1
a
B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)
Variable(s) entered on step 1: gender.
a.
Odds, Women


A woman is only .429 as likely to decide to
continue the research as she is to decide
to stop it.
429 . 0
847 . ) 0 ( 217 . 1 847 .
= = =
+
e e ODDS
Odds, Men




A man is 1.448 times more likely to vote to
continue the research than to stop the research.


448 . 1
37 . ) 1 ( 217 . 1 847 .
= = =
+
e e ODDS
Odds Ratio



1.217 was the B (slope) for Gender, 3.376 is the
Exp(B), that is, the exponentiated slope, the
odds ratio.
Men are 3.376 times more likely to vote to
continue the research than are women.

217 . 1
376 . 3
429 .
448 . 1
_
_
e
odds female
odds male
= = =
Convert Odds to Probabilities
For our women,



For our men,

30 . 0
429 . 1
429 . 0
1

= =
+
=
ODDS
ODDS
Y
59 . 0
448 . 2
448 . 1
1

= =
+
=
ODDS
ODDS
Y
Classification
Decision Rule: If Prob (event) > Cutoff,
then predict event will take place.
By default, SPSS uses .5 as Cutoff.
For every man, Prob(continue) = .59,
predict he will vote to continue.
For every woman Prob(continue) = .30,
predict she will vote to stop it.
Overall Success Rate
Look at the Classification Table








SPSS beat the Goldfish!


% 66
315
208
315
68 140
= =
+
Classification Table
a
140 47 74.9
60 68 53.1
66.0
Observed
stop
continue
decision
Overall Percentage
Step 1
stop continue
decision
Percentage
Correct
Predicted
The cut value is .500
a.
Sensitivity
P (correct prediction | event did occur)
P (predict Continue | subject voted to Continue)
Of all those who voted to continue the research,
for how many did we correctly predict that.

% 53
128
68
60 68
68
= =
+
Specificity
P (correct prediction | event did not occur)
P (predict Stop | subject voted to Stop)
Of all those who voted to stop the research, for
how many did we correctly predict that.


% 75
187
140
47 140
140
= =
+
False Positive Rate
P (incorrect prediction | predicted occurrence)
P (subject voted to Stop | we predicted Continue)
Of all those for whom we predicted a vote to Continue
the research, how often were we wrong.

% 41
115
47
68 47
47
= =
+
False Negative Rate
P (incorrect prediction | predicted nonoccurrence)
P (subject voted to Continue | we predicted Stop)
Of all those for whom we predicted a vote to Stop the
research, how often were we wrong.

% 30
200
60
60 140
60
= =
+
Pearson _
2

Analyze, Descriptive Statistics, Crosstabs
Gender Rows; Decision Columns



Crosstabs Statistics
Statistics, Chi-Square, Continue





Crosstabs Cells
Cells, Observed Counts, Row
Percentages



Crosstabs Output
Continue, OK
59% & 30% match logistics predictions.


gender * decision Crosstabulation
140 60 200
70.0% 30.0% 100.0%
47 68 115
40.9% 59.1% 100.0%
187 128 315
59.4% 40.6% 100.0%
Count
% within gender
Count
% within gender
Count
% within gender
Female
Male
gender
Total
stop continue
decision
Total
Crosstabs Output
Likelihood Ratio _
2
= 25.653, as with
logistic.
Chi-Square Tests
25.685
b
1 .000
25.653 1 .000
315
Pearson Chi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
N of Valid Cases
Value df
Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
Computed only f or a 2x2 table
a.
0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The
minimum expected count is 46.73.
b.
Model 2: Decision =
Idealism, Relativism, Gender
Analyze, Regression, Binary Logistic
Decision Dependent
Gender, Idealism, Relatvsm
Covariate(s)
Click Options and check Hosmer-
Lemeshow goodness of fit and CI for
exp(B) 95%.







Continue, OK.

Comparing Nested Models
With only intercept and gender,
-2LL = 399.913.
Adding idealism and relativism dropped
-2LL to 346.503, a drop of 53.41.
_
2
(2) = 399.913 346.503 = 53.41, p = ?


Model Summary
346.503
a
.222 .300
Step
1
-2 Log
likelihood
Cox & Snell
R Square
Nagelkerke
R Square
Estimation terminated at iteration number 4 because
parameter estimates changed by less than .001.
a.
Obtain p
Transform, Compute
Target Variable = p
Numeric Expression =
1 - CDF.CHISQ(53.41,2)
p = ?
OK
Data Editor, Variable View
Set Decimal Points to 5 for p

p < .0001
Data Editor, Data View
p = .00000
Adding the ethical ideology variables
significantly improved the model.

Hosmer-Lemeshow
H

: weighted combination of predictors is

related to outcome log odds in linear
fashion.
Cases are arranged in order by their
predicted probability on the criterion.
Then divided into ten groups (lowest decile
to highest decile)
This gives ten rows in the table.
The two columns are, for each row, how
many cases were the event, how many the
nonevent.

Contingency Table for Hosmer and Lemeshow Test
29 29.331 3 2.669 32
30 27.673 2 4.327 32
28 25.669 4 6.331 32
20 23.265 12 8.735 32
22 20.693 10 11.307 32
15 18.058 17 13.942 32
15 15.830 17 16.170 32
10 12.920 22 19.080 32
12 9.319 20 22.681 32
6 4.241 21 22.759 27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Step
1
Observed Expected
decision = stop
Observed Expected
decision = continue
Total
Note expected freqs decline in first
column, rise in second.
The nonsignificant chi-square indicative of
fit of data with linear model.

Hosmer and Lemeshow Test
8.810 8 .359
Step
1
Chi-square df Sig.
Model 3: Decision =
Idealism, Relativism, Gender, Purpose
Need 4 dummy variables to code the five
purposes.
Consider the Medical group a reference
group.
Dummy variables are: Cosmetic, Theory,
Meat, Veterin.
0 = not in this group, 1 = in this group.
Add the Dummy Variables
Analyze, Regression, Binary Logistic
Add to the Covariates: Cosmetic, Theory,
Meat, Veterin.
OK
Block 0
Look at Variables not in the Equation.
Score is how much -2LL would drop if a
single variable were added to the model
with intercept only.

Variables not in the Equation
25.685 1 .000
47.679 1 .000
7.239 1 .007
.003 1 .955
2.933 1 .087
.556 1 .456
.013 1 .909
77.665 7 .000
gender
idealism
relatvsm
cosmetic
theory
meat
veterin
Variables
Overall Statistics
Step
0
Score df Sig.
Effect of Adding Purpose
Our previous model had -2LL = 346.503.
Adding Purpose dropped -2LL to 338.060.




_
2
(4) = 8.443, p = .0766.
But I make planned comparisons (with medical
reference group) anyhow!
Model Summary
338.060
a
.243 .327
Step
1
-2 Log
likelihood
Cox & Snell
R Square
Nagelkerke
R Square
Estimation terminated at iteration number 5 because
parameter estimates changed by less than .001.
a.
Classification Table
YOU calculate the sensitivity, specificity,
false positive rate, and false negative rate.
Classification Table
a
152 35 81.3
54 74 57.8
71.7
Observed
stop
continue
decision
Overall Percentage
Step 1
stop continue
decision
Percentage
Correct
Predicted
The cut value is .500
a.
Answer Key
Sensitivity = 74/128 = 58%
Specificity = 152/187 = 81%
False Positive Rate = 35/109 = 32%
False Negative Rate = 54/206 = 26%
Wald Chi-Square
A conservative test of the unique
contribution of each predictor.
Presented in Variables in the Equation.
Alternative: drop one predictor from the
model, observe the increase in -2LL, test
via _
2
.

Variables in the Equation
1.255 20.586 1 .000 3.508 2.040 6.033
-.701 37.891 1 .000 .496 .397 .620
.326 6.634 1 .010 1.386 1.081 1.777
-.709 2.850 1 .091 .492 .216 1.121
-1.160 7.346 1 .007 .314 .136 .725
-.866 4.164 1 .041 .421 .183 .966
-.542 1.751 1 .186 .581 .260 1.298
2.279 4.867 1 .027 9.766
gender
idealism
relatvsm
cosmetic
theory
meat
veterin
Constant
Step
1
a
B Wald df Sig. Exp(B) Lower Upper
95.0% C.I.f or EXP(B)
Variable(s) entered on step 1: gender, idealism, relatvsm, cosmetic, theory, meat, veterin.
a.
Odds Ratios Exp(B)
Odds of approval more than cut in half (.496) for
each one point increase in Idealism.
Odds of approval multiplied by 1.39 for each one
point increase in Relativism.
Odds of approval if purpose is Theory Testing
are only .314 what they are for Medical
Research.
Odds of approval if purpose is Agricultural
Research are only .421 what they are for
Medical research

Inverted Odds Ratios
Some folks have problems with odds
ratios less than 1.
Just invert the odds ratio.
For example, 1/.421 = 2.38.
That is, respondents were more than two
times more likely to approve the medical
research than the research designed to
feed to poor in the third world.
Classification Decision Rule
Consider a screening test for Cancer.
Which is the more serious error
False Positive test says you have cancer,
but you do not
False Negative test says you do not have
cancer but you do
Want to reduce the False Negative rate?
Classification Decision Rule
Analyze, Regression, Binary Logistic
Options
Classification Cutoff = .4, Continue, OK
Effect of Lowering Cutoff
YOU calculate the Sensitivity, Specificity,
False Positive Rate, and False Negative
Rate for the model with the cutoff at .4.
Fill in the table on page 15 of the handout.
Answer Key
Value When Cutoff = .5 .4
Sensitivity 58% 75%
Specificity 81% 72%
False Positive Rate 32% 36%
False Negative Rate 26% 19%
Overall % Correct 72% 73%

SAS Rules
See, on page 16 of the handout, how easy
SAS makes it to see the effect of changing
the cutoff.
SAS classification tables remove bias
(using a jackknifed classification
procedure), SPSS does not have this
feature.
Presenting the Results
See the handout.
Interaction Terms
Center continuous variables
Compute the interaction terms or
Let Logistic compute them.
Deliberation and Physical
Attractiveness in a Mock Trial
Subjects are mock jurors in a criminal trial.
For half the defendant is plain, for the
other half physically attractive.
Half recommend a verdict with no
deliberation, half deliberate first.

Get the Data
Bring Logistic2x2x2.sav into SPSS.
Each row is one cell in 2x2x2 contingency
table.
Could do a logit analysis, but will do
logistic regression instead.
Tell SPSS to weight cases by Freq. Data,
Weight Cases:


Dependent = Guilty.
Covariates = Delib, Plain.
In left pane highlight Delib and Plain.



Then click >a*b> to create the interaction
term.




Under Options, ask for the Hosmer-
Lemeshow test and confidence intervals
on the odds ratios.


Significant Interaction
The interaction is large and significant
(odds ratio of .030), so we shall ignore the
main effects.

Variables in the Equation
3.697 1 .054 .338 .112 1.021
4.204 1 .040 3.134 1.052 9.339
8.075 1 .004 .030 .003 .338
.037 1 .847 1.077
Delib
Plain
Delib by Plain
Constant
Step
1
a
Wald df Sig. Exp(B) Lower Upper
95.0% C.I.f or EXP(B)
Variable(s) entered on step 1: Delib, Plain, Delib * Plain .
a.
Use Crosstabs to test the conditional
effects of Plain at each level of Delib.
Split file by Delib.




Analyze, Crosstabs.
Rows = Plain, Columns = Guilty.
Statistics, Chi-square, Continue.
Cells, Observed Counts and Column
Percentages.
Continue, OK.



Rows = Plain, Columns = Guilty
For those who did deliberate, the odds of a
guilty verdict are 1/29 when the defendant
was plain and 8/22 when she was
attractive, yielding a conditional odds ratio
of 0.09483 .

Plain * Guilty Crosstabulation
a
22 8 30
73.3% 26.7% 100.0%
29 1 30
96.7% 3.3% 100.0%
51 9 60
85.0% 15.0% 100.0%
Count
% within Plain
Count
% within Plain
Count
% within Plain
Attrractive
Plain
Plain
Total
No Yes
Guilty
Total
Delib = Yes
a.
For those who did not deliberate, the odds
of a guilty verdict are 27/8 when the
defendant was plain and 14/13 when she
was attractive, yielding a conditional odds
ratio of 3.1339.
Plain * Guilty Crosstabulation
a
13 14 27
48.1% 51.9% 100.0%
8 27 35
22.9% 77.1% 100.0%
21 41 62
33.9% 66.1% 100.0%
Count
% within Plain
Count
% within Plain
Count
% within Plain
Attrractive
Plain
Plain
Total
No Yes
Guilty
Total
Delib = No
a.
Interaction Odds Ratio
The interaction odds ratio is simply the ratio of
these conditional odds ratios that is,
.09483/3.1339 = 0.030.
Among those who did not deliberate, the plain
defendant was found guilty significantly more
often than the attractive defendant, _
2
(1, N = 62)
= 4.353, p = .037.
Among those who did deliberate, the attractive
defendant was found guilty significantly more
often than the plain defendant, _
2
(1, N = 60) =
6.405, p = .011.
Interaction Between Continuous
and Dichotomous Predictor
Interaction Falls Short of
Significance

Standardizing Predictors
Most helpful with continuous predictors.
Especially when want to compare the
relative contributions of predictors in the
model.
Also useful when the predictor is
measured in units that are not intrinsically
meaningful.
Predicting Retention in ECUs
Engineering Program

Practice Your New Skills
Try the exercises in the handout.