The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Using Heterogeneous Choice Models to Compare Logit and Probit Coefficients Across Groups
Abstract
Allison (1999) notes that comparisons of logit and probit coefficients across groups can be invalid and misleading, proposes a procedure by which these problems can be corrected, and argues that ``routine use [of this method] seems advisable'' and that ``it is hard to see how [the method] can be improved.'' In this article, the author argues that as originally proposed, Allison's method can have serious problems and should not be applied on a routine basis. However, this study also shows that his model belongs to a larger class of models variously known as heterogeneous choice or location-scale models. Several advantages of this broader and more flexible class of models are illustrated. Dependent variables can be ordinal in addition to binary, sources of heterogeneity can be better modeled and controlled for, and insights can be gained into the effects of group characteristics on outcomes that would be missed by other methods.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
McCullagh, P., & Nelder, J. A. (1989) · doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-3242-6 · Cited by 16,836
Assessing proportionality in the proportional odds model for ordinal logistic regression.
Brant, R. (1990) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2532457 · Cited by 1,864
Cited by
Logistic Regression: Why We Cannot Do What We Think We Can Do, and What We Can Do About It
Mood, C. (2010) · European Sociological Review · doi:10.1093/esr/jcp006 · Cited by 3,158
Interpreting and Understanding Logits, Probits, and Other Nonlinear Probability Models
Breen, R., Karlson, K. B., & Holm, A. (2018) · Annual Review of Sociology · doi:10.1146/annurev-soc-073117-041429 · Cited by 468
National Hiring Experiments Reveal 2:1 Faculty Preference for Women on Stem Tenure Track
Williams, W. M., & Ceci, S. J. (2015) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1418878112 · Cited by 435
Stock Market Literacy, Trust, and Participation
Balloch, A., Nicolae, A., & Philip, D. (2015) · Review of Finance · doi:10.1093/rof/rfu040 · Cited by 187
Chow, P. I., Fua, K., Huang, Y., Bonelli, W., Xiong, H., Barnes, L. E., & Teachman, B. A. (2017) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.6820 · Cited by 172
Metadata
- Authors
- Williams, R.
- Venue
- Sociological Methods & Research
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2009-05
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 531-559
- ISSN
- 0049-1241 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-8294
- OpenAlex
- W2126058594
- Cited by
- 436
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 19.68
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Using Heterogeneous Choice Models to Compare Logit and Probit Coefficients Across Groups. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/0049124109335735
- The paper
- Williams, R. (2009). Using Heterogeneous Choice Models to Compare Logit and Probit Coefficients Across Groups. Sociological Methods & Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124109335735
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
