### 3.6 Multi-factor Models: Model Selection

We now move to an analysis using all three predictors: age, desire for no more children, and education. We start by considering models that treat all variables as factors. Because we have only three variables we are able to fit all possible models, which provides a nice check on the usual forward selection or backward elimination strategies.

#### The Deviance Table

Let us reproduce Table 3.13, which compares all possible one, two and three-factor models. I will take advantage of Stata's factor variables to simplify specifying these models. I will also supress all output to save space, as we are only interested in the deviances.

(If you are using an earlier version
of Stata you can try the `xi`

prefix, or build the dummy
variables for the two and three-factor interactions by hand.
I recommend that you use macros to store the names of the dummies
corresponding to each interaction term, both for brevity and clarity.)

The first step will be to fit the model with the three-factor interaction, which is saturated for the 2x4x2x2 table of contraceptive use by age, education, and desire for more children. We will store the log-likelihood and d.f. in two scalars, and save the fitted values for later plotting

. quietly logit cuse i.age##c.nomore##c.educ [fw=n] . scalar slogL = e(ll) . scalar sdf = e(df_m) . predict obs3, xb // 3-way model

Next we are going to fit 16 different models. Given the repetitive nature of the calculations it pays to plan in advance. I will create three variables to store the name, deviance and d.f. of each model, using a string of up to 36 characters for the model name

. gen str36 model = "" (32 missing values generated) . gen deviance = . (32 missing values generated) . gen df = . (32 missing values generated)

I will then write a simple command that takes as arguments the
name and specification of the model, fits it, and stores the
name, deviance and d.f. in the three variables just defined,
using a global macro `n`

to keep track of the
number of the row where the results will be stored

. program define mfit 1. version 11 2. args model formula 3. quietly logit cuse `formula' [fw=n] 4. global n = $n + 1 5. quietly replace model = "`model'" in $n 6. quietly replace deviance = 2*(slogL-e(ll)) in $n 7. quietly replace df = sdf - e(df_m) in $n 8. end

Finally I initialize the row number to 0 and fit the models, taking care to enclose the model name and formula in quotes to ensure that they are treated as just two arguments rather than split into words

. global n = 0 . // one-factor models . mfit Age i.age . mfit Education educ . mfit "NoMore" nomore . // two-factor additive models . mfit "Age + Education" "i.age educ" . mfit "Age + NoMore" "i.age nomore" . mfit "Education + NoMore" "educ nomore" . // two-factor interactions . mfit "Age * Education" "i.age##c.educ" . mfit "Age * NoMore" "i.age##c.nomore" . mfit "Education * NoMore" "c.educ##c.nomore" . // three-factor additive model . mfit "Age + Education + NoMore" "i.age c.educ c.nomore" . // one interaction . mfit "Age * Education + NoMore" "i.age##c.educ nomore" . mfit "Age * NoMore + Education" "i.age##c.nomore educ" . mfit "Age + Education * NoMore" "i.age c.nomore##c.educ" . // two interactions . mfit "Age * (Education + NoMore)" "i.age##c.educ i.age##c.nomore" . mfit "Education * (Age + NoMore)" "i.age##c.educ c.educ##c.nomore" . mfit "NoMore * (Age + Education)" "i.age##c.nomore c.educ##c.nomore" . // three interactions . mfit "Age*Educ+Age*NoMore+Educ*NoMore" "i.age##c.nomore c.educ i.age#c.educ c > .educ#c.nomore"

Done, let's print the results, using only two decimal places for the deviances

. format deviance %6.2f . list model deviance df if !missing(deviance), clean model deviance df 1. Age 86.58 12 2. Education 165.07 14 3. NoMore 74.10 14 4. Age + Education 80.42 11 5. Age + NoMore 36.89 11 6. Education + NoMore 73.87 13 7. Age * Education 73.03 8 8. Age * NoMore 20.10 8 9. Education * NoMore 67.64 12 10. Age + Education + NoMore 29.92 10 11. Age * Education + NoMore 23.15 7 12. Age * NoMore + Education 12.63 7 13. Age + Education * NoMore 23.02 9 14. Age * (Education + NoMore) 5.80 4 15. Education * (Age + NoMore) 13.76 6 16. NoMore * (Age + Education) 10.82 6 17. Age*Educ+Age*NoMore+Educ*NoMore 2.44 3

Please refer to the notes for various tests based on these models. You should be able to test for net effects of each factor given the other two, test each of the interactions, and test the goodness of fit of each model. We now examine three models of interest.

#### The Three-factor Additive Model

We will fit again the three-factor additive model so we can show the parameter estimates reflecting the net effect of each factor. The gross effects of age and desire or no more children have been shown earlier in this log. I continue to use factor variables

. logit cuse i.age educ nomore [fw=n] Iteration 0: log likelihood = -1001.8468 Iteration 1: log likelihood = -934.92579 Iteration 2: log likelihood = -933.92045 Iteration 3: log likelihood = -933.9192 Iteration 4: log likelihood = -933.9192 Logistic regression Number of obs = 1607 LR chi2(5) = 135.86 Prob > chi2 = 0.0000 Log likelihood = -933.9192 Pseudo R2 = 0.0678 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ cuse | Coef. Std. Err. z P>|z| [95% Conf. Interval] -------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- age | 2 | .3893816 .1758501 2.21 0.027 .0447219 .7340414 3 | .9086135 .1646211 5.52 0.000 .5859621 1.231265 4 | 1.189239 .21443 5.55 0.000 .7689639 1.609514 | educ | .3249947 .1240355 2.62 0.009 .0818894 .5680999 nomore | .8329548 .1174705 7.09 0.000 .6027169 1.063193 _cons | -1.966169 .1720307 -11.43 0.000 -2.303343 -1.628995 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ . di exp(_b[educ]) 1.3840232

Contraceptive use differs by each of these factors, even when we compare women who fall in the same categories of the other two. For example the odds of using contraception are 38% higher among women with some education than among women with no education in the same age group and category of desire for more children.

The deviance of 29.92 on 10 d.f. tells us that this model does not fit the data, so the assumption that logit differences by one variable are the same across categories of the other two is suspect.

#### The Model with One Interaction Effect

Of the three models with one interaction term, the one that achieves the largest improvement in fit compared to the additive model is the model with an age by no more interaction, where the difference in logits between women who want and do not want more children varies by age.

The standard reference-cell parametrization can easily be obtained using factor variables:

. logit cuse i.age##c.nomore educ [fw=n] Iteration 0: log likelihood = -1001.8468 Iteration 1: log likelihood = -926.33767 Iteration 2: log likelihood = -925.27593 Iteration 3: log likelihood = -925.27536 Iteration 4: log likelihood = -925.27536 Logistic regression Number of obs = 1607 LR chi2(8) = 153.14 Prob > chi2 = 0.0000 Log likelihood = -925.27536 Pseudo R2 = 0.0764 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ cuse | Coef. Std. Err. z P>|z| [95% Conf. Interval] -------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- age | 2 | .3946039 .2014504 1.96 0.050 -.0002315 .7894394 3 | .5466635 .1984206 2.76 0.006 .1577663 .9355607 4 | .5795235 .3474172 1.67 0.095 -.1014017 1.260449 | nomore | .0662197 .3307064 0.20 0.841 -.5819529 .7143922 | age#c.nomore | 2 | .25918 .4097504 0.63 0.527 -.5439161 1.062276 3 | 1.112662 .3740433 2.97 0.003 .3795507 1.845773 4 | 1.361674 .4843256 2.81 0.005 .4124134 2.310935 | educ | .3406479 .1257653 2.71 0.007 .0941525 .5871432 _cons | -1.803172 .1801786 -10.01 0.000 -2.156315 -1.450028 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ . di exp(_b[nomore]), exp(_b[4.age#c.nomore]), /// > exp(_b[nomore] + _b[4.age#c.nomore]) 1.0684614 3.902721 4.1699068

Make sure you know how to interpret all of these coefficients. For example the ratio of the odds of using contraception among women who want no more children relative to those who want more in the same category of education is 1.07 among women under age 25, but 3.9 times more (giving an odds ratio of 4.1) among women in their forties.

To aid in interpretation and model criticism we can plot the
observed and fitted logits, effectively reproducing Figure 3.4.
Because we will need more than one plot I will encapsulate the
calculations in a command `pof`

, for __p__lot
__o__bserved and __f__fitted.
So here's the command:

. capture program drop pof . program define pof 1. args obs fit more 2. twoway /// > (scatter `obs' agem if educ==0 & nomore==0, ms(D) mc(green) ) /// > (scatter `obs' agem if educ==0 & nomore==1, ms(T) mc(red)) /// > (scatter `obs' agem if educ==1 & nomore==0, ms(C) mc(green)) /// > (scatter `obs' agem if educ==1 & nomore==1, ms(S) mc(red)) /// > (line `fit' agem if educ==0 & nomore==0, lp(dash) lc(green)) /// > (line `fit' agem if educ==0 & nomore==1, lp(dash) lc(red) ) /// > (line `fit' agem if educ==1 & nomore==0, lp(solid) lc(green)) /// > (line `fit' agem if educ==1 & nomore==1, lp(solid) lc(red)) /// > , title("Contraceptive Use by Age, Education, and Preferences") /// > xtitle(age) ytitle(logit) legend( rows(2) /// > order(1 "uned/" 2 "uned/" 3 "educ/" 4 "educ/" /// > 5 "more" 6 "no more" 7 "more" 8 "no more") ) `more' 3. end

The plot combines four scatterplots and four line plots, one for each subgroup defined by education and desire for more children. The command takes as arguments the names of variables with the observed and fitted value and an optional string to be passed along as an option to the graph twoway command. It uses the same markers as in the notes, but with what I hope is a better legend

So here's our first plot

. predict lfit31, xb . pof obs3 lfit31 "subtitle(Model with Age by Preferences Interaction)" (note: named style C not found in class symbol, default attributes used . graph export fig34.png, width(500) replace (file fig34.png written in PNG format)

I often find interpretation of the interactions is more direct if I combine them with the main effects. Here is the same model showing the difference in logits by desire for more children in each age group, reproducing the results in Table 3.15

. gen nomo_at1524 = nomore * (age==1) . gen nomo_at2529 = nomore * (age==2) . gen nomo_at3039 = nomore * (age==3) . gen nomo_at4049 = nomore * (age==4) . logit cuse i.age educ nomo_at* [fw=n] Iteration 0: log likelihood = -1001.8468 Iteration 1: log likelihood = -926.33767 Iteration 2: log likelihood = -925.27593 Iteration 3: log likelihood = -925.27536 Iteration 4: log likelihood = -925.27536 Logistic regression Number of obs = 1607 LR chi2(8) = 153.14 Prob > chi2 = 0.0000 Log likelihood = -925.27536 Pseudo R2 = 0.0764 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ cuse | Coef. Std. Err. z P>|z| [95% Conf. Interval] -------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- age | 2 | .3946039 .2014504 1.96 0.050 -.0002315 .7894394 3 | .5466635 .1984206 2.76 0.006 .1577663 .9355607 4 | .5795235 .3474172 1.67 0.095 -.1014017 1.260449 | educ | .3406479 .1257653 2.71 0.007 .0941525 .5871432 nomo_at1524 | .0662197 .3307064 0.20 0.841 -.5819529 .7143922 nomo_at2529 | .3253996 .2419217 1.35 0.179 -.1487581 .7995574 nomo_at3039 | 1.178882 .1748169 6.74 0.000 .836247 1.521517 nomo_at4049 | 1.427894 .3538467 4.04 0.000 .7343668 2.121421 _cons | -1.803172 .1801786 -10.01 0.000 -2.156315 -1.450028 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ . di exp(_b[educ]) 1.4058581 . mata exp( st_matrix("e(b)")[6..9]) 1 2 3 4 +---------------------------------------------------------+ 1 | 1.068461402 1.384583879 3.250737129 4.169906768 | +---------------------------------------------------------+

Note how we can freely mix factor variables for age with hand coded dummies for the effects of wanting no more children at each age. We find 34% higher odds of using contraception among women with some education compared to women with no education in the same age group and category of desire. We also see that the odds of using contraception among women who want no more children are higher than among women who want more children in the same age and category of education, 7% higher under age 25, 38% higher at age 25-29, three times as high for women in their thirties and four times as high among women in their forties.

(In case you are wondering why the coefficients for no more at various
ages are in positions 6 to 9 rather than 5 to 8, note that When you use
factor variables Stata stores the coefficient for the reference cell,
with a value of zero, as part of `e(b)`

.)

This model passes the conventional goodness of fit test and therefore provides a reasonable description of contraceptive use by age, education, and desire for more children.

#### All Three Two-Factor Interactions

As explained in the notes, there is some evidence that education may interact with the other two variables. The model with all three two-factor interactions provides the best fit, with a deviance of 2.44 on three d.f., but is substantially more complex.

Rather than present parameter estimates, I will reproduce Figure 3.5,
which provides some hints on how the model could be simplified.
Thanks to our `pof`

command this is now an easy task:

. quietly logit cuse i.age educ nomore /// > i.age#c.educ i.age#c.nomore c.educ#c.nomore [fw=n] . predict lfit32, xb . pof obs3 lfit32 "subtitle(All Two-Factor Interactions)" (note: named style C not found in class symbol, default attributes used . graph export fig35.png, width(500) replace (file fig35.png written in PNG format)

A picture is indeed worth a thousand words. We see that among women who want no more children contraceptive use increases almost linearly with age (in the logit scale) with no differences by education except in the oldest age group where use flattens for women with no education. Among women who do want more children contraceptive use is generally lower, increases more slowly with age, there are some differences by education, and these are higher among older women. There's also a hint of curvature by age for women with no education who want more children.

#### A Parsimonious Model

These observations suggest ways to simplify the model. The age interactions are quite simple: the increase with age is steeper among women who want no more children, and the difference by education is larger among women in their forties. Similarly, the educational difference is larger in use for spacing and among older women.

One way to capture these features is to use a quadratic on age, allow the slope (but not the curvature) to vary by desire for more children, and introduce effects of education only for spacing and after age 40 (and thus not for limiting before age 40). To facilitate interpretation of the resulting parameters I center age around 30:

. gen agemc = agem-30 . gen agemcsq = agemc^2 . gen educ_spacing = educ * (1-nomore) . gen educ_at40p = educ * (age==4)

So here is a more parsimonious model

. logit cuse c.agemc##c.nomore agemcsq c.educ_spacing educ_at40p [fw=n] Iteration 0: log likelihood = -1001.8468 Iteration 1: log likelihood = -923.04064 Iteration 2: log likelihood = -921.89423 Iteration 3: log likelihood = -921.89297 Iteration 4: log likelihood = -921.89297 Logistic regression Number of obs = 1607 LR chi2(6) = 159.91 Prob > chi2 = 0.0000 Log likelihood = -921.89297 Pseudo R2 = 0.0798 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ cuse | Coef. Std. Err. z P>|z| [95% Conf. Interval] -------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- agemc | .0247552 .0118884 2.08 0.037 .0014543 .0480561 nomore | .9804174 .1790475 5.48 0.000 .6294907 1.331344 | c.agemc#| c.nomore | .058961 .0183799 3.21 0.001 .0229371 .0949849 | agemcsq | -.0034306 .0010318 -3.32 0.001 -.0054529 -.0014083 educ_spacing | .432112 .1808991 2.39 0.017 .0775563 .7866677 educ_at40p | .9798156 .3462926 2.83 0.005 .3010945 1.658537 _cons | -1.339265 .1578254 -8.49 0.000 -1.648597 -1.029933 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ . di "deviance=" 2*(slogL - e(ll)) " on " (sdf-e(df_m)) " df" deviance=5.8647683 on 9 df

This model has only seven parameters and a deviance of 5.9 on 9 d.f., so it is much simpler than the previous model and fits pretty well. Obviously we can't take the test seriously because we didn't specify these terms in advance, but the exercise shows how one can simplify a model capturing its essential features. Before we interpret the coefficients let us check the fitted values

. predict lfit33, xb . pof obs3 lfit33 "subtitle(A Simplified Model)" (note: named style C not found in class symbol, default attributes used . graph export fig35b.png, width(500) replace (file fig35b.png written in PNG format)

We see that the model provides almost the same fit as the much more complex model of the previous subsection. Returning to the parameter estimates, we see that contraceptive use generally increases with age, with an increment in the odds of about 2.5 percent at age 30 (less at younger and older ages, with differences noted below after age 40). Use is much higher among women who want more children, with an odds ratio of 2.7 at age 30, increasing about six percent per year of age. Women with some education are more likely to use contraception for spacing purposes, with an odds ratio of 1.5, and are also more likely to use for either spacing or limiting after age 40, with an odds ratio of 2.7 (which makes the odds ratio by education for spacers after age 40 just above four).

Alternative model simplifications are given in the notes.