Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-17T07:21:10.708Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Getting Time Right: Using Cox Models and Probabilities to Interpret Binary Panel Data

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 June 2021

Shawna K. Metzger*
Affiliation:
Department of Politics, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA. Email: [email protected]
Benjamin T. Jones
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of Mississippi, Oxford, MS, USA. Email: [email protected]
*
Corresponding author Shawna K. Metzger

Abstract

Logit and probit (L/P) models are a mainstay of binary time-series cross-sectional (BTSCS) analyses. Researchers include cubic splines or time polynomials to acknowledge the temporal element inherent in these data. However, L/P models cannot easily accommodate three other aspects of the data’s temporality: whether covariate effects are conditional on time, whether the process of interest is causally complex, and whether our functional form assumption regarding time’s effect is correct. Failing to account for any of these issues amounts to misspecification bias, threatening our inferences’ validity. We argue scholars should consider using Cox duration models when analyzing BTSCS data, as they create fewer opportunities for such misspecification bias, while also having the ability to assess the same hypotheses as L/P. We use Monte Carlo simulations to bring new evidence to light showing Cox models perform just as well—and sometimes better—than logit models in a basic BTSCS setting, and perform considerably better in more complex BTSCS situations. In addition, we highlight a new interpretation technique for Cox models—transition probabilities—to make Cox model results more readily interpretable. We use an application from interstate conflict to demonstrate our points.

Type
Article
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2021. 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 Jeff Gill

*

The authors' names appear in reverse alphabetical order.

References

Athey, S., and Imbens, G.. 2016. “Recursive Partitioning for Heterogeneous Causal Effects.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113(27):73537360.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beck, N. 2010. “Time Is Not a Theoretical Variable.” Political Analysis 18(3):293294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, N., Katz, J., and Tucker, R.. 1998. “Taking Time Seriously: Time-Series-Cross-Section Analysis with a Binary Dependent Variable.” American Journal of Political Science 42(4):12601288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Box-Steffensmeier, J. M., and Jones, B. S.. 2004. Event History Modeling: A Guide for Social Scientists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braumoeller, B. F. 2003. “Causal Complexity and the Study of Politics.” Political Analysis 11(3):209233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, D. B., and Signorino, C. S.. 2010. “Back to the Future: Modeling Time Dependence in Binary Data.” Political Analysis 18(3):271292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crowther, M. J., and Lambert, P. C.. 2012. “Simulating Complex Survival Data.” Stata Journal 12(4):674687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimmer, J., Messing, S., and Westwood, S. J.. 2017. “Estimating Heterogeneous Treatment Effects and the Effects of Heterogeneous Treatments with Ensemble Methods.” Political Analysis 25(4):413434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrell, F. E. 2015. Regression Modeling Strategies: With Applications to Linear Models, Logistic Regression, and Survival Analysis, 2nd edn. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jervis, R. 1997. System Effects: Complexity in Political and Social Life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Jin, S., and Boehmke, F. J.. 2017. “Proper Specification of Nonproportional Hazards Corrections in Duration Models.” Political Analysis 25(1):138144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, B. S., and Branton, R. P.. 2005. “Beyond Logit and Probit: Cox Duration Models of Single, Repeating, and Competing Events for State Policy Adoption.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 5(4):420443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, B. T., and Metzger, S. K.. 2019. “Different Words, Same Song: Advice for Substantively Interpreting Duration Models.” PS: Political Science & Politics 52(4):691695.Google Scholar
Licht, A. A. 2011. “Change Comes with Time: Substantive Interpretation of Nonproportional Hazards in Event History Analysis.” Political Analysis 19(2):227243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGrath, L. F. 2015. “Estimating Onsets of Binary Events in Panel Data.” Political Analysis 23(4):534549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Metzger, S. K., and Jones, B. T.. 2016. “Surviving Phases: Introducing Multistate Survival Models.” Political Analysis 24(4):457477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Metzger, S. K., and Jones, B. T.. 2021a. “Replication Data for: Getting Time Right: Using Cox Models and Probabilities to Interpret Binary Panel Data.” Code Ocean. https://doi.org/10.24433/CO.7111207.v2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Metzger, S. K., and Jones, B. T.. 2021b. “Replication Data for: Getting Time Right: Using Cox Models and Probabilities to Interpret Binary Panel Data.” Harvard Dataverse, V2. https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/FEW2JP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mood, C. 2010. “Logistic Regression: Why We Cannot Do What We Think We Can Do, and What We Can Do About It.” European Sociological Review 26(1):6782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oneal, J. R., and Russett, B.. 1999. “The Kantian Peace: The Pacific Benefits of Democracy, Interdependence, and International Organizations, 1885–1992.” World Politics 52(1):137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oneal, J. R., and Russett, B.. 2005. “Rule of Three, Let It Be? When More Really Is Better.” Conflict Management and Peace Science 22(4):293310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sueyoshi, G. T. 1995. “A Class of Binary Response Models for Grouped Duration Data.” Journal of Applied Econometrics 10(4):411431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

Metzger and Jones Dataset

Link
Supplementary material: PDF

Metzger and Jones supplementary material

Appendices

Download Metzger and Jones supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 5.3 MB