Modeling multiple‐response categorical data from complex surveys
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Although “choose all that apply” questions are common in modern surveys, methods for analyzing associations among responses to such questions have only recently been developed. These methods are generally valid only for simple random sampling, but these types of questions often appear in surveys conducted under more complex sampling plans. The purpose of this article is to provide statistical analysis methods that can be applied to “choose all that apply” questions in complex survey sampling situations. Loglinear models are developed to incorporate the multiple responses inherent in these types of questions. Statistics to compare models and to measure association are proposed and their asymptotic distributions are derived. Monte Carlo simulations show that tests based on adjusted Pearson statistics generally hold their correct size when comparing models. These simulations also show that confidence intervals for odds ratios estimated from loglinear models have good coverage properties, while being shorter than those constructed using empirical estimates. Furthermore, the methods are shown to be applicable to more general problems of modeling associations between elements of two or more binary vectors. The proposed analysis methods are applied to data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. The Canadian Journal of Statistics © 2009 Statistical Society of Canada
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.042 | 0.124 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".