Logistic regression - overview

This page offers structured overviews of one or more selected methods. Add additional methods for comparisons (max. of 3) by clicking on the dropdown button in the right-hand column. To practice with a specific method click the button at the bottom row of the table

Logistic regression
Spearman's rho
One way ANOVA
Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test
Independent variablesVariable 1Independent/grouping variableIndependent/grouping variable
One or more quantitative of interval or ratio level and/or one or more categorical with independent groups, transformed into code variablesOne of ordinal levelOne categorical with $I$ independent groups ($I \geqslant 2$)One categorical with 2 independent groups
Dependent variableVariable 2Dependent variableDependent variable
One categorical with 2 independent groupsOne of ordinal levelOne quantitative of interval or ratio levelOne of ordinal level
Null hypothesisNull hypothesisNull hypothesisNull hypothesis
Model chi-squared test for the complete regression model:
  • H0: $\beta_1 = \beta_2 = \ldots = \beta_K = 0$
Wald test for individual regression coefficient $\beta_k$:
  • H0: $\beta_k = 0$
    or in terms of odds ratio:
  • H0: $e^{\beta_k} = 1$
Likelihood ratio chi-squared test for individual regression coefficient $\beta_k$:
  • H0: $\beta_k = 0$
    or in terms of odds ratio:
  • H0: $e^{\beta_k} = 1$
in the regression equation $ \ln \big(\frac{\pi_{y = 1}}{1 - \pi_{y = 1}} \big) = \beta_0 + \beta_1 \times x_1 + \beta_2 \times x_2 + \ldots + \beta_K \times x_K $. Here $ x_i$ represents independent variable $ i$, $\beta_i$ is the regression weight for independent variable $ x_i$, and $\pi_{y = 1}$ represents the true probability that the dependent variable $ y = 1$ (or equivalently, the proportion of $ y = 1$ in the population) given the scores on the independent variables.
H0: $\rho_s = 0$

Here $\rho_s$ is the Spearman correlation in the population. The Spearman correlation is a measure for the strength and direction of the monotonic relationship between two variables of at least ordinal measurement level.

In words, the null hypothesis would be:

H0: there is no monotonic relationship between the two variables in the population.
ANOVA $F$ test:
  • H0: $\mu_1 = \mu_2 = \ldots = \mu_I$
    $\mu_1$ is the population mean for group 1; $\mu_2$ is the population mean for group 2; $\mu_I$ is the population mean for group $I$
$t$ Test for contrast:
  • H0: $\Psi = 0$
    $\Psi$ is the population contrast, defined as $\Psi = \sum a_i\mu_i$. Here $\mu_i$ is the population mean for group $i$ and $a_i$ is the coefficient for $\mu_i$. The coefficients $a_i$ sum to 0.
$t$ Test multiple comparisons:
  • H0: $\mu_g = \mu_h$
    $\mu_g$ is the population mean for group $g$; $\mu_h$ is the population mean for group $h$
If the dependent variable is measured on a continuous scale and the shape of the distribution of the dependent variable is the same in both populations:
  • H0: the population median for group 1 is equal to the population median for group 2
Else:
Formulation 1:
  • H0: the population scores in group 1 are not systematically higher or lower than the population scores in group 2
Formulation 2:
  • H0: P(an observation from population 1 exceeds an observation from population 2) = P(an observation from population 2 exceeds observation from population 1)
Several different formulations of the null hypothesis can be found in the literature, and we do not agree with all of them. Make sure you (also) learn the one that is given in your text book or by your teacher.
Alternative hypothesisAlternative hypothesisAlternative hypothesisAlternative hypothesis
Model chi-squared test for the complete regression model:
  • H1: not all population regression coefficients are 0
Wald test for individual regression coefficient $\beta_k$:
  • H1: $\beta_k \neq 0$
    or in terms of odds ratio:
  • H1: $e^{\beta_k} \neq 1$
    If defined as Wald $ = \dfrac{b_k}{SE_{b_k}}$ (see 'Test statistic'), also one sided alternatives can be tested:
  • H1 right sided: $\beta_k > 0$
  • H1 left sided: $\beta_k < 0$
Likelihood ratio chi-squared test for individual regression coefficient $\beta_k$:
  • H1: $\beta_k \neq 0$
    or in terms of odds ratio:
  • H1: $e^{\beta_k} \neq 1$
H1 two sided: $\rho_s \neq 0$
H1 right sided: $\rho_s > 0$
H1 left sided: $\rho_s < 0$
ANOVA $F$ test:
  • H1: not all population means are equal
$t$ Test for contrast:
  • H1 two sided: $\Psi \neq 0$
  • H1 right sided: $\Psi > 0$
  • H1 left sided: $\Psi < 0$
$t$ Test multiple comparisons:
  • H1 - usually two sided: $\mu_g \neq \mu_h$
If the dependent variable is measured on a continuous scale and the shape of the distribution of the dependent variable is the same in both populations:
  • H1 two sided: the population median for group 1 is not equal to the population median for group 2
  • H1 right sided: the population median for group 1 is larger than the population median for group 2
  • H1 left sided: the population median for group 1 is smaller than the population median for group 2
Else:
Formulation 1:
  • H1 two sided: the population scores in group 1 are systematically higher or lower than the population scores in group 2
  • H1 right sided: the population scores in group 1 are systematically higher than the population scores in group 2
  • H1 left sided: the population scores in group 1 are systematically lower than the population scores in group 2
Formulation 2:
  • H1 two sided: P(an observation from population 1 exceeds an observation from population 2) $\neq$ P(an observation from population 2 exceeds an observation from population 1)
  • H1 right sided: P(an observation from population 1 exceeds an observation from population 2) > P(an observation from population 2 exceeds an observation from population 1)
  • H1 left sided: P(an observation from population 1 exceeds an observation from population 2) < P(an observation from population 2 exceeds an observation from population 1)
AssumptionsAssumptionsAssumptionsAssumptions
  • In the population, the relationship between the independent variables and the log odds $\ln (\frac{\pi_{y=1}}{1 - \pi_{y=1}})$ is linear
  • The residuals are independent of one another
Often ignored additional assumption:
  • Variables are measured without error
Also pay attention to:
  • Multicollinearity
  • Outliers
  • Sample of pairs is a simple random sample from the population of pairs. That is, pairs are independent of one another
Note: this assumption is only important for the significance test, not for the correlation coefficient itself. The correlation coefficient itself just measures the strength of the monotonic relationship between two variables.
  • Within each population, the scores on the dependent variable are normally distributed
  • The standard deviation of the scores on the dependent variable is the same in each of the populations: $\sigma_1 = \sigma_2 = \ldots = \sigma_I$
  • Group 1 sample is a simple random sample (SRS) from population 1, group 2 sample is an independent SRS from population 2, $\ldots$, group $I$ sample is an independent SRS from population $I$. That is, within and between groups, observations are independent of one another
  • Group 1 sample is a simple random sample (SRS) from population 1, group 2 sample is an independent SRS from population 2. That is, within and between groups, observations are independent of one another
Test statisticTest statisticTest statisticTest statistic
Model chi-squared test for the complete regression model:
  • $X^2 = D_{null} - D_K = \mbox{null deviance} - \mbox{model deviance} $
    $D_{null}$, the null deviance, is conceptually similar to the total variance of the dependent variable in OLS regression analysis. $D_K$, the model deviance, is conceptually similar to the residual variance in OLS regression analysis.
Wald test for individual $\beta_k$:
The wald statistic can be defined in two ways:
  • Wald $ = \dfrac{b_k^2}{SE^2_{b_k}}$
  • Wald $ = \dfrac{b_k}{SE_{b_k}}$
SPSS uses the first definition.

Likelihood ratio chi-squared test for individual $\beta_k$:
  • $X^2 = D_{K-1} - D_K$
    $D_{K-1}$ is the model deviance, where independent variable $k$ is excluded from the model. $D_{K}$ is the model deviance, where independent variable $k$ is included in the model.
$t = \dfrac{r_s \times \sqrt{N - 2}}{\sqrt{1 - r_s^2}} $
Here $r_s$ is the sample Spearman correlation and $N$ is the sample size. The sample Spearman correlation $r_s$ is equal to the Pearson correlation applied to the rank scores.
ANOVA $F$ test:
  • $\begin{aligned}[t] F &= \dfrac{\sum\nolimits_{subjects} (\mbox{subject's group mean} - \mbox{overall mean})^2 / (I - 1)}{\sum\nolimits_{subjects} (\mbox{subject's score} - \mbox{its group mean})^2 / (N - I)}\\ &= \dfrac{\mbox{sum of squares between} / \mbox{degrees of freedom between}}{\mbox{sum of squares error} / \mbox{degrees of freedom error}}\\ &= \dfrac{\mbox{mean square between}}{\mbox{mean square error}} \end{aligned} $
    where $N$ is the total sample size, and $I$ is the number of groups.
    Note: mean square between is also known as mean square model, and mean square error is also known as mean square residual or mean square within.
$t$ Test for contrast:
  • $t = \dfrac{c}{s_p\sqrt{\sum \dfrac{a^2_i}{n_i}}}$
    Here $c$ is the sample estimate of the population contrast $\Psi$: $c = \sum a_i\bar{y}_i$, with $\bar{y}_i$ the sample mean in group $i$. $s_p$ is the pooled standard deviation based on all the $I$ groups in the ANOVA, $a_i$ is the contrast coefficient for group $i$, and $n_i$ is the sample size of group $i$.
    Note that if the contrast compares only two group means with each other, this $t$ statistic is very similar to the two sample $t$ statistic (assuming equal population standard deviations). In that case the only difference is that we now base the pooled standard deviation on all the $I$ groups, which affects the $t$ value if $I \geqslant 3$. It also affects the corresponding degrees of freedom.
$t$ Test multiple comparisons:
  • $t = \dfrac{\bar{y}_g - \bar{y}_h}{s_p\sqrt{\dfrac{1}{n_g} + \dfrac{1}{n_h}}}$
    $\bar{y}_g$ is the sample mean in group $g$, $\bar{y}_h$ is the sample mean in group $h$, $s_p$ is the pooled standard deviation based on all the $I$ groups in the ANOVA, $n_g$ is the sample size of group $g$, and $n_h$ is the sample size of group $h$.
    Note that this $t$ statistic is very similar to the two sample $t$ statistic (assuming equal population standard deviations). The only difference is that we now base the pooled standard deviation on all the $I$ groups, which affects the $t$ value if $I \geqslant 3$. It also affects the corresponding degrees of freedom.
Two different types of test statistics can be used; both will result in the same test outcome. The first is the Wilcoxon rank sum statistic $W$: The second type of test statistic is the Mann-Whitney $U$ statistic:
  • $U = W - \dfrac{n_1(n_1 + 1)}{2}$
where $n_1$ is the sample size of group 1.

Note: we could just as well base W and U on group 2. This would only 'flip' the right and left sided alternative hypotheses. Also, tables with critical values for $U$ are often based on the smaller of $U$ for group 1 and for group 2.
n.a.n.a.Pooled standard deviationn.a.
--$ \begin{aligned} s_p &= \sqrt{\dfrac{(n_1 - 1) \times s^2_1 + (n_2 - 1) \times s^2_2 + \ldots + (n_I - 1) \times s^2_I}{N - I}}\\ &= \sqrt{\dfrac{\sum\nolimits_{subjects} (\mbox{subject's score} - \mbox{its group mean})^2}{N - I}}\\ &= \sqrt{\dfrac{\mbox{sum of squares error}}{\mbox{degrees of freedom error}}}\\ &= \sqrt{\mbox{mean square error}} \end{aligned} $

Here $s^2_i$ is the variance in group $i.$
-
Sampling distribution of $X^2$ and of the Wald statistic if H0 were trueSampling distribution of $t$ if H0 were trueSampling distribution of $F$ and of $t$ if H0 were trueSampling distribution of $W$ and of $U$ if H0 were true
Sampling distribution of $X^2$, as computed in the model chi-squared test for the complete model:
  • chi-squared distribution with $K$ (number of independent variables) degrees of freedom
Sampling distribution of the Wald statistic:
  • If defined as Wald $ = \dfrac{b_k^2}{SE^2_{b_k}}$: approximately the chi-squared distribution with 1 degree of freedom
  • If defined as Wald $ = \dfrac{b_k}{SE_{b_k}}$: approximately the standard normal distribution
Sampling distribution of $X^2$, as computed in the likelihood ratio chi-squared test for individual $\beta_k$:
  • chi-squared distribution with 1 degree of freedom
Approximately the $t$ distribution with $N - 2$ degrees of freedomSampling distribution of $F$:
  • $F$ distribution with $I - 1$ (df between, numerator) and $N - I$ (df error, denominator) degrees of freedom
Sampling distribution of $t$:
  • $t$ distribution with $N - I$ degrees of freedom

Sampling distribution of $W$:
For large samples, $W$ is approximately normally distributed with mean $\mu_W$ and standard deviation $\sigma_W$ if the null hypothesis were true. Here $$ \begin{aligned} \mu_W &= \dfrac{n_1(n_1 + n_2 + 1)}{2}\\ \sigma_W &= \sqrt{\dfrac{n_1 n_2(n_1 + n_2 + 1)}{12}} \end{aligned} $$ Hence, for large samples, the standardized test statistic $$ z_W = \dfrac{W - \mu_W}{\sigma_W}\\ $$ follows approximately the standard normal distribution if the null hypothesis were true. Note that if your $W$ value is based on group 2, $\mu_W$ becomes $\frac{n_2(n_1 + n_2 + 1)}{2}$.

Sampling distribution of $U$:
For large samples, $U$ is approximately normally distributed with mean $\mu_U$ and standard deviation $\sigma_U$ if the null hypothesis were true. Here $$ \begin{aligned} \mu_U &= \dfrac{n_1 n_2}{2}\\ \sigma_U &= \sqrt{\dfrac{n_1 n_2(n_1 + n_2 + 1)}{12}} \end{aligned} $$ Hence, for large samples, the standardized test statistic $$ z_U = \dfrac{U - \mu_U}{\sigma_U}\\ $$ follows approximately the standard normal distribution if the null hypothesis were true.

For small samples, the exact distribution of $W$ or $U$ should be used.

Note: if ties are present in the data, the formula for the standard deviations $\sigma_W$ and $\sigma_U$ is more complicated.
Significant?Significant?Significant?Significant?
For the model chi-squared test for the complete regression model and likelihood ratio chi-squared test for individual $\beta_k$:
  • Check if $X^2$ observed in sample is equal to or larger than critical value $X^{2*}$ or
  • Find $p$ value corresponding to observed $X^2$ and check if it is equal to or smaller than $\alpha$
For the Wald test:
  • If defined as Wald $ = \dfrac{b_k^2}{SE^2_{b_k}}$: same procedure as for the chi-squared tests. Wald can be interpret as $X^2$
  • If defined as Wald $ = \dfrac{b_k}{SE_{b_k}}$: same procedure as for any $z$ test. Wald can be interpreted as $z$.
Two sided: Right sided: Left sided: $F$ test:
  • Check if $F$ observed in sample is equal to or larger than critical value $F^*$ or
  • Find $p$ value corresponding to observed $F$ and check if it is equal to or smaller than $\alpha$ (e.g. .01 < $p$ < .025 when $F$ = 3.91, df between = 4, and df error = 20)

$t$ Test for contrast two sided: $t$ Test for contrast right sided: $t$ Test for contrast left sided:
$t$ Test multiple comparisons two sided:
  • Check if $t$ observed in sample is at least as extreme as critical value $t^{**}$. Adapt $t^{**}$ according to a multiple comparison procedure (e.g., Bonferroni) or
  • Find two sided $p$ value corresponding to observed $t$ and check if it is equal to or smaller than $\alpha$. Adapt the $p$ value or $\alpha$ according to a multiple comparison procedure
$t$ Test multiple comparisons right sided
  • Check if $t$ observed in sample is equal to or larger than critical value $t^{**}$. Adapt $t^{**}$ according to a multiple comparison procedure (e.g., Bonferroni) or
  • Find right sided $p$ value corresponding to observed $t$ and check if it is equal to or smaller than $\alpha$. Adapt the $p$ value or $\alpha$ according to a multiple comparison procedure
$t$ Test multiple comparisons left sided
  • Check if $t$ observed in sample is equal to or smaller than critical value $t^{**}$. Adapt $t^{**}$ according to a multiple comparison procedure (e.g., Bonferroni) or
  • Find left sided $p$ value corresponding to observed $t$ and check if it is equal to or smaller than $\alpha$. Adapt the $p$ value or $\alpha$ according to a multiple comparison procedure
For large samples, the table for standard normal probabilities can be used:
Two sided: Right sided: Left sided:
Wald-type approximate $C\%$ confidence interval for $\beta_k$n.a.$C\%$ confidence interval for $\Psi$, for $\mu_g - \mu_h$, and for $\mu_i$n.a.
$b_k \pm z^* \times SE_{b_k}$
where the critical value $z^*$ is the value under the normal curve with the area $C / 100$ between $-z^*$ and $z^*$ (e.g. $z^*$ = 1.96 for a 95% confidence interval).
-Confidence interval for $\Psi$ (contrast):
  • $c \pm t^* \times s_p\sqrt{\sum \dfrac{a^2_i}{n_i}}$
    where the critical value $t^*$ is the value under the $t_{N - I}$ distribution with the area $C / 100$ between $-t^*$ and $t^*$ (e.g. $t^*$ = 2.086 for a 95% confidence interval when df = 20). Note that $n_i$ is the sample size of group $i$, and $N$ is the total sample size, based on all the $I$ groups.
Confidence interval for $\mu_g - \mu_h$ (multiple comparisons):
  • $(\bar{y}_g - \bar{y}_h) \pm t^{**} \times s_p\sqrt{\dfrac{1}{n_g} + \dfrac{1}{n_h}}$
    where $t^{**}$ depends upon $C$, degrees of freedom ($N - I$), and the multiple comparison procedure. If you do not want to apply a multiple comparison procedure, $t^{**} = t^* = $ the value under the $t_{N - I}$ distribution with the area $C / 100$ between $-t^*$ and $t^*$. Note that $n_g$ is the sample size of group $g$, $n_h$ is the sample size of group $h$, and $N$ is the total sample size, based on all the $I$ groups.
Confidence interval for single population mean $\mu_i$:
  • $\bar{y}_i \pm t^* \times \dfrac{s_p}{\sqrt{n_i}}$
    where $\bar{y}_i$ is the sample mean in group $i$, $n_i$ is the sample size of group $i$, and the critical value $t^*$ is the value under the $t_{N - I}$ distribution with the area $C / 100$ between $-t^*$ and $t^*$ (e.g. $t^*$ = 2.086 for a 95% confidence interval when df = 20). Note that $n_i$ is the sample size of group $i$, and $N$ is the total sample size, based on all the $I$ groups.
-
Goodness of fit measure $R^2_L$n.a.Effect sizen.a.
$R^2_L = \dfrac{D_{null} - D_K}{D_{null}}$
There are several other goodness of fit measures in logistic regression. In logistic regression, there is no single agreed upon measure of goodness of fit.
-
  • Proportion variance explained $\eta^2$ and $R^2$:
    Proportion variance of the dependent variable $y$ explained by the independent variable: $$ \begin{align} \eta^2 = R^2 &= \dfrac{\mbox{sum of squares between}}{\mbox{sum of squares total}} \end{align} $$ Only in one way ANOVA $\eta^2 = R^2.$ $\eta^2$ (and $R^2$) is the proportion variance explained in the sample. It is a positively biased estimate of the proportion variance explained in the population.

  • Proportion variance explained $\omega^2$:
    Corrects for the positive bias in $\eta^2$ and is equal to: $$\omega^2 = \frac{\mbox{sum of squares between} - \mbox{df between} \times \mbox{mean square error}}{\mbox{sum of squares total} + \mbox{mean square error}}$$ $\omega^2$ is a better estimate of the explained variance in the population than $\eta^2.$

  • Cohen's $d$:
    Standardized difference between the mean in group $g$ and in group $h$: $$d_{g,h} = \frac{\bar{y}_g - \bar{y}_h}{s_p}$$ Cohen's $d$ indicates how many standard deviations $s_p$ two sample means are removed from each other.
-
n.a.n.a.ANOVA tablen.a.
--
ANOVA table

Click the link for a step by step explanation of how to compute the sum of squares.
-
n.a.n.a.Equivalent toEquivalent to
--OLS regression with one categorical independent variable transformed into $I - 1$ code variables:
  • $F$ test ANOVA is equivalent to $F$ test regression model
  • $t$ test for contrast $i$ is equivalent to $t$ test for regression coefficient $\beta_i$ (specific contrast tested depends on how the code variables are defined)
If there are no ties in the data, the two sided Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test is equivalent to the Kruskal-Wallis test with an independent variable with 2 levels ($I$ = 2).
Example contextExample contextExample contextExample context
Can body mass index, stress level, and gender predict whether people get diagnosed with diabetes?Is there a monotonic relationship between physical health and mental health?Is the average mental health score different between people from a low, moderate, and high economic class?Do men tend to score higher on social economic status than women?
SPSSSPSSSPSSSPSS
Analyze > Regression > Binary Logistic...
  • Put your dependent variable in the box below Dependent and your independent (predictor) variables in the box below Covariate(s)
Analyze > Correlate > Bivariate...
  • Put your two variables in the box below Variables
  • Under Correlation Coefficients, select Spearman
Analyze > Compare Means > One-Way ANOVA...
  • Put your dependent (quantitative) variable in the box below Dependent List and your independent (grouping) variable in the box below Factor
or
Analyze > General Linear Model > Univariate...
  • Put your dependent (quantitative) variable in the box below Dependent Variable and your independent (grouping) variable in the box below Fixed Factor(s)
Analyze > Nonparametric Tests > Legacy Dialogs > 2 Independent Samples...
  • Put your dependent variable in the box below Test Variable List and your independent (grouping) variable in the box below Grouping Variable
  • Click on the Define Groups... button. If you can't click on it, first click on the grouping variable so its background turns yellow
  • Fill in the value you have used to indicate your first group in the box next to Group 1, and the value you have used to indicate your second group in the box next to Group 2
  • Continue and click OK
JamoviJamoviJamoviJamovi
Regression > 2 Outcomes - Binomial
  • Put your dependent variable in the box below Dependent Variable and your independent variables of interval/ratio level in the box below Covariates
  • If you also have code (dummy) variables as independent variables, you can put these in the box below Covariates as well
  • Instead of transforming your categorical independent variable(s) into code variables, you can also put the untransformed categorical independent variables in the box below Factors. Jamovi will then make the code variables for you 'behind the scenes'
Regression > Correlation Matrix
  • Put your two variables in the white box at the right
  • Under Correlation Coefficients, select Spearman
  • Under Hypothesis, select your alternative hypothesis
ANOVA > ANOVA
  • Put your dependent (quantitative) variable in the box below Dependent Variable and your independent (grouping) variable in the box below Fixed Factors
T-Tests > Independent Samples T-Test
  • Put your dependent variable in the box below Dependent Variables and your independent (grouping) variable in the box below Grouping Variable
  • Under Tests, select Mann-Whitney U
  • Under Hypothesis, select your alternative hypothesis
Practice questionsPractice questionsPractice questionsPractice questions