VIF 分数。有什么用?没什么用

IF 8.9 2区 管理学 Q1 MANAGEMENT
Arturs Kalnins, Kendall Praitis Hill
{"title":"VIF 分数。有什么用?没什么用","authors":"Arturs Kalnins, Kendall Praitis Hill","doi":"10.1177/10944281231216381","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Variance inflation factors (VIF scores) are regression diagnostics commonly invoked throughout the social sciences. Researchers typically take the perspective that VIF scores below a numerical rule-of-thumb threshold act as a “silver bullet” to dismiss any and all multicollinearity concerns. Yet, no valid logical basis exists for using VIF thresholds to reject the possibility of multicollinearity-induced type 1 errors. Reporting VIF scores below a threshold does not in any way add to the credibility of statistically significant results among correlated variables. In contrast to this “threshold perspective,” our analysis expands the scope of a perspective that has considered multicollinearity and misspecification. We demonstrate analytically that a regression omitting a relevant variable correlated with included variables that exhibit multicollinearity is susceptible to endogeneity-induced bias inflation and beta polarization, leading to the possible co-existence of type 1 errors and low VIF scores. Further, omitting variables explicitly reduces VIF scores. We conclude that the threshold perspective not only lacks any logical basis but also is fundamentally misleading as a rule-of-thumb. Instrumental variables represent one clear remedy for endogeneity-induced bias inflation. If exogenous instruments are unavailable, we encourage researchers to test only straightforward, unambiguous theory when using variables that exhibit multicollinearity, and to ensure that correlated co-variates exhibit the expected signs.","PeriodicalId":19689,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Research Methods","volume":"24 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":8.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The VIF Score. What is it Good For? Absolutely Nothing\",\"authors\":\"Arturs Kalnins, Kendall Praitis Hill\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/10944281231216381\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Variance inflation factors (VIF scores) are regression diagnostics commonly invoked throughout the social sciences. Researchers typically take the perspective that VIF scores below a numerical rule-of-thumb threshold act as a “silver bullet” to dismiss any and all multicollinearity concerns. Yet, no valid logical basis exists for using VIF thresholds to reject the possibility of multicollinearity-induced type 1 errors. Reporting VIF scores below a threshold does not in any way add to the credibility of statistically significant results among correlated variables. In contrast to this “threshold perspective,” our analysis expands the scope of a perspective that has considered multicollinearity and misspecification. We demonstrate analytically that a regression omitting a relevant variable correlated with included variables that exhibit multicollinearity is susceptible to endogeneity-induced bias inflation and beta polarization, leading to the possible co-existence of type 1 errors and low VIF scores. Further, omitting variables explicitly reduces VIF scores. We conclude that the threshold perspective not only lacks any logical basis but also is fundamentally misleading as a rule-of-thumb. Instrumental variables represent one clear remedy for endogeneity-induced bias inflation. If exogenous instruments are unavailable, we encourage researchers to test only straightforward, unambiguous theory when using variables that exhibit multicollinearity, and to ensure that correlated co-variates exhibit the expected signs.\",\"PeriodicalId\":19689,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Organizational Research Methods\",\"volume\":\"24 4\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":8.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Organizational Research Methods\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/10944281231216381\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Organizational Research Methods","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10944281231216381","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

方差膨胀因子(VIF 分值)是社会科学领域常用的回归诊断方法。研究人员通常认为,VIF 分数低于某个数字规则阈值,就可以作为 "灵丹妙药 "来排除所有多重共线性问题。然而,使用 VIF 临界值来排除多重共线性引起的 1 类错误的可能性并不存在有效的逻辑依据。报告低于阈值的 VIF 分数丝毫不会增加相关变量统计意义结果的可信度。与这种 "临界值视角 "不同,我们的分析扩大了考虑多重共线性和规格错误的视角的范围。我们通过分析表明,如果回归中省略了与表现出多重共线性的包含变量相关的相关变量,就很容易出现由内生因素引起的偏差膨胀和贝塔极化,从而导致 1 类错误和低 VIF 分数可能同时存在。此外,明确省略变量可降低 VIF 分数。我们的结论是,阈值观点不仅缺乏逻辑基础,而且作为一种经验法则从根本上具有误导性。工具变量是解决内生性偏差膨胀的一种有效方法。如果没有外生工具,我们鼓励研究人员在使用表现出多重共线性的变量时,只对直接、明确的理论进行检验,并确保相关共变量表现出预期的符号。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The VIF Score. What is it Good For? Absolutely Nothing
Variance inflation factors (VIF scores) are regression diagnostics commonly invoked throughout the social sciences. Researchers typically take the perspective that VIF scores below a numerical rule-of-thumb threshold act as a “silver bullet” to dismiss any and all multicollinearity concerns. Yet, no valid logical basis exists for using VIF thresholds to reject the possibility of multicollinearity-induced type 1 errors. Reporting VIF scores below a threshold does not in any way add to the credibility of statistically significant results among correlated variables. In contrast to this “threshold perspective,” our analysis expands the scope of a perspective that has considered multicollinearity and misspecification. We demonstrate analytically that a regression omitting a relevant variable correlated with included variables that exhibit multicollinearity is susceptible to endogeneity-induced bias inflation and beta polarization, leading to the possible co-existence of type 1 errors and low VIF scores. Further, omitting variables explicitly reduces VIF scores. We conclude that the threshold perspective not only lacks any logical basis but also is fundamentally misleading as a rule-of-thumb. Instrumental variables represent one clear remedy for endogeneity-induced bias inflation. If exogenous instruments are unavailable, we encourage researchers to test only straightforward, unambiguous theory when using variables that exhibit multicollinearity, and to ensure that correlated co-variates exhibit the expected signs.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
23.20
自引率
3.20%
发文量
17
期刊介绍: Organizational Research Methods (ORM) was founded with the aim of introducing pertinent methodological advancements to researchers in organizational sciences. The objective of ORM is to promote the application of current and emerging methodologies to advance both theory and research practices. Articles are expected to be comprehensible to readers with a background consistent with the methodological and statistical training provided in contemporary organizational sciences doctoral programs. The text should be presented in a manner that facilitates accessibility. For instance, highly technical content should be placed in appendices, and authors are encouraged to include example data and computer code when relevant. Additionally, authors should explicitly outline how their contribution has the potential to advance organizational theory and research practice.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信