比例难度更低?:重新评价基尔的“比例难度”

IF 4.7 2区 社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE
Shawna K. Metzger
{"title":"比例难度更低?:重新评价基尔的“比例难度”","authors":"Shawna K. Metzger","doi":"10.1017/pan.2022.13","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Keele (2010, Political Analysis 18:189–205) emphasizes that the incumbent test for detecting proportional hazard (PH) violations in Cox duration models can be adversely affected by misspecified covariate functional form(s). In this note, I reevaluate Keele’s evidence by running a full set of Monte Carlo simulations using the original article’s illustrative data-generating processes (DGPs). I make use of the updated PH test calculation available in R’s survival package starting with v3.0-10. Importantly, I find the updated PH test calculation performs better for Keele’s DGPs, suggesting its scope conditions are distinct and worth further investigating. I also uncover some evidence for the traditional calculation suggesting it, too, may have additional scope conditions that could impact practitioners’ interpretation of Keele (2010). On the whole, while we should always be attentive to model misspecification, my results suggest we should also become more attentive to how frequently the PH test’s performance is affected in practice, and that the answer may depend on the calculation’s implementation.","PeriodicalId":48270,"journal":{"name":"Political Analysis","volume":"31 1","pages":"156 - 163"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Proportionally Less Difficult?: Reevaluating Keele’s “Proportionally Difficult”\",\"authors\":\"Shawna K. Metzger\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/pan.2022.13\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Keele (2010, Political Analysis 18:189–205) emphasizes that the incumbent test for detecting proportional hazard (PH) violations in Cox duration models can be adversely affected by misspecified covariate functional form(s). In this note, I reevaluate Keele’s evidence by running a full set of Monte Carlo simulations using the original article’s illustrative data-generating processes (DGPs). I make use of the updated PH test calculation available in R’s survival package starting with v3.0-10. Importantly, I find the updated PH test calculation performs better for Keele’s DGPs, suggesting its scope conditions are distinct and worth further investigating. I also uncover some evidence for the traditional calculation suggesting it, too, may have additional scope conditions that could impact practitioners’ interpretation of Keele (2010). On the whole, while we should always be attentive to model misspecification, my results suggest we should also become more attentive to how frequently the PH test’s performance is affected in practice, and that the answer may depend on the calculation’s implementation.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48270,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Political Analysis\",\"volume\":\"31 1\",\"pages\":\"156 - 163\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-06-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Political Analysis\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/pan.2022.13\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Political Analysis","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/pan.2022.13","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

Keele (2010, Political Analysis 18:189-205)强调,在Cox持续时间模型中,检测比例风险(PH)违规的在位检验可能会受到错误指定的协变量函数形式的不利影响。在本文中,我通过使用原始文章的说明性数据生成过程(dpp)运行一整套蒙特卡罗模拟来重新评估Keele的证据。我使用从v3.0-10开始的R生存包中提供的更新的PH测试计算。重要的是,我发现更新后的PH测试计算对Keele的dpps有更好的表现,这表明它的范围条件是独特的,值得进一步研究。我还发现了一些传统计算的证据,表明它也可能有额外的范围条件,可能影响从业者对Keele(2010)的解释。总的来说,虽然我们应该始终注意模型的错误规范,但我的结果表明,我们也应该更加注意PH测试的性能在实践中受到影响的频率,而答案可能取决于计算的实现。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Proportionally Less Difficult?: Reevaluating Keele’s “Proportionally Difficult”
Abstract Keele (2010, Political Analysis 18:189–205) emphasizes that the incumbent test for detecting proportional hazard (PH) violations in Cox duration models can be adversely affected by misspecified covariate functional form(s). In this note, I reevaluate Keele’s evidence by running a full set of Monte Carlo simulations using the original article’s illustrative data-generating processes (DGPs). I make use of the updated PH test calculation available in R’s survival package starting with v3.0-10. Importantly, I find the updated PH test calculation performs better for Keele’s DGPs, suggesting its scope conditions are distinct and worth further investigating. I also uncover some evidence for the traditional calculation suggesting it, too, may have additional scope conditions that could impact practitioners’ interpretation of Keele (2010). On the whole, while we should always be attentive to model misspecification, my results suggest we should also become more attentive to how frequently the PH test’s performance is affected in practice, and that the answer may depend on the calculation’s implementation.
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
Political Analysis
Political Analysis POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
8.80
自引率
3.70%
发文量
30
期刊介绍: Political Analysis chronicles these exciting developments by publishing the most sophisticated scholarship in the field. It is the place to learn new methods, to find some of the best empirical scholarship, and to publish your best research.
×
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