Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T17:03:46.711Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Predicted Probabilities and Inference with Multinomial Logit

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 November 2020

Philip Paolino Open the ORCID record for Philip Paolino [Opens in a new window]
Philip Paolino*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of North Texas, Denton, TX, USA. Email: paolino@unt.edu
*
Corresponding author Philip Paolino
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Multinomial logit (MNL) differs from many other econometric methods because it estimates the effects of variables upon nominal, not ordered outcomes. One consequence of this is that the estimated coefficients vary depending upon a researcher’s decision about the choice of a reference, or “baseline,” outcome. Most researchers realize this in principle, but many focus upon the statistical significance of MNL coefficients for inference in the same way that they use the coefficients from models with ordered dependent variables. In some instances, this leads researchers to report statistics that do not reflect the correct quantities of interest and reach flawed conclusions. In this note, I argue that researchers need to orient their approach to analyzing both the substantive and statistical significance of predicted probabilities of interest that match their research questions.

Keywords

multinomial logitqualitative choicemaximum likelihood
Type
Letter
Information
Political Analysis , Volume 29 , Issue 3 , July 2021 , pp. 416 - 421
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Society for Political Methodology

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Edited by Lonna Atkeson

References

Fox, J., and Andersen, R.. 2006. “Effect Displays for Multinomial and Proportional-odds Logit Models.” Sociological Methodology 36(1):225–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelpi, C. 2017. “The Surprising Robustness of Surprising Events: A Response to a Critique of “Performing on Cue”.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 61(8):1816–1834. https://u.osu.edu/gelpi.10/files/2016/08/GelpiPOCReplication-2clvxdn.zip.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greene, W. 2012. Econometric Analysis. 7th edn. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Greenhill, K. M., and Oppenheim, B.. 2017. “Rumor Has It: The Adoption of Unverified Information in Conflict Zones.” International Studies Quarterly 61(3):660–676. https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/KMRVWY, Harvard Dataverse, V1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanmer, M. J., and Kalkan, K. O.. 2013. “Behind the Curve: Clarifying the Best Approach to Calculating Predicted Probabilities and Marginal Effects from Limited Dependent Variable Models.” American Journal of Political Science 57(1):263–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paolino, P. 2020. “Replication Data for: Predicted Probabilities and Inference with Multinomial Logit.” https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/MVP6ID Harvard dataverse, V1, UNF:6:pOUJ1wqKmQbvbw83r/up2Q==[fileUNF].Google Scholar
Tomz, M., Whittenberg, J., and King, G.. 2003. “Clarify: Software for Interpreting and Presenting Statistical Results.” Journal of Statistical Software 8(1):1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

Paolino Dataset

Dataset

https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/MVP6ID
Link
Supplementary material: PDF

Paolino supplementary material

Paolino supplementary material

Download Paolino supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 165.2 KB