Does the “divide by 4 rule” give the upper bound marginal effect?Assessing logistic regression modelsLogistic regression and marginal effectInference on fixed effects in a mixed effects modelHow to estimate ICC (degree of clustering) in hierarchical logistic regression?Can I do a t-test to compare t-statistics?Why does hypothesis testing using coefficient and odds ratio give different conclusion?Hypothesis testing for marginal effectRule of thumb for log odds ratios effect size interpretationlogit - interpreting coefficients as probabilitiesMLE for logistic regression, formal derivation
In the Seventh Seal why does Death let the chess game happen?
Is there a standard definition of the "stall" phenomena?
Why did Super-VGA offer the 5:4 1280*1024 resolution?
Would the Life cleric's Disciple of Life feature supercharge the Regenerate spell?
How can select a specific triangle in my Delaunay mesh?
How serious is plagiarism in a master’s thesis?
Has there ever been a cold war other than between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R.?
Park the computer
Do intermediate subdomains need to exist?
Why did moving the mouse cursor cause Windows 95 to run more quickly?
How would a sea turtle end up on its back?
Does the force of friction helps us to accelerate while running?
Are "confidant" and "confident" homophones?
Is this standard Japanese employment negotiations, or am I missing something?
What's the difference between a type and a kind?
What instances can be solved today by modern solvers (pure LP)?
Lie bracket of vector fields in Penrose's abstract index notation
How do I iterate equal values with the standard library?
Is kapton suitable for use as high voltage insulation?
The Purpose of "Natu"
Why is there paternal, for fatherly, fraternal, for brotherly, but no similar word for sons?
What is the shape of the upper boundary of water hitting a screen?
Isn't "Dave's protocol" good if only the database, and not the code, is leaked?
Was the 45.9°C temperature in France in June 2019 the highest ever recorded in France?
Does the “divide by 4 rule” give the upper bound marginal effect?
Assessing logistic regression modelsLogistic regression and marginal effectInference on fixed effects in a mixed effects modelHow to estimate ICC (degree of clustering) in hierarchical logistic regression?Can I do a t-test to compare t-statistics?Why does hypothesis testing using coefficient and odds ratio give different conclusion?Hypothesis testing for marginal effectRule of thumb for log odds ratios effect size interpretationlogit - interpreting coefficients as probabilitiesMLE for logistic regression, formal derivation
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
$begingroup$
In the logisitic regression chapter of "Data Analysis Using Regression and
Multilevel/Hierarchical Models" by Gelman and Hill, The "Divide by 4" rule is presented to approximate average marginal effects.
Essentially, dividing the estimated log-odds ratio gives the maximum slope (or the maximum change in probabilities) of the logistic function.
Since the text above states that the "divide by 4 rule" gives the maximum change in $P(y=1)$ with a unit change in x, why is the estimated 8% less than the 13% calculated from actually taking the derivative of the logistic function in the example given?
Does the "divide by 4 rule" actually give the upper bound marginal effect?
Other "divide by 4" resources:
- Using the "Divide by 4 Rule" to Interpret Logistic Regression Coefficients
- Divide by 4 Rule for Marginal Effects - Econometric Sense
- http://vulstats.ucsd.edu/pdf/Gelman.ch-05.logistic-regression.pdf
logistic regression-coefficients odds-ratio logistic-curve model-interpretation
$endgroup$
|
show 3 more comments
$begingroup$
In the logisitic regression chapter of "Data Analysis Using Regression and
Multilevel/Hierarchical Models" by Gelman and Hill, The "Divide by 4" rule is presented to approximate average marginal effects.
Essentially, dividing the estimated log-odds ratio gives the maximum slope (or the maximum change in probabilities) of the logistic function.
Since the text above states that the "divide by 4 rule" gives the maximum change in $P(y=1)$ with a unit change in x, why is the estimated 8% less than the 13% calculated from actually taking the derivative of the logistic function in the example given?
Does the "divide by 4 rule" actually give the upper bound marginal effect?
Other "divide by 4" resources:
- Using the "Divide by 4 Rule" to Interpret Logistic Regression Coefficients
- Divide by 4 Rule for Marginal Effects - Econometric Sense
- http://vulstats.ucsd.edu/pdf/Gelman.ch-05.logistic-regression.pdf
logistic regression-coefficients odds-ratio logistic-curve model-interpretation
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Your question seems to come down to asking why the maximum slope of the logistic function occurs at $x=0.$ Is that really what you are after?
$endgroup$
– whuber♦
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@whuber I think they understand that part... I think they are asking why the estimated maximum marginal effect is beta/4 = 0.08 yet the text suggests that the actual derivative = 0.13.
$endgroup$
– Emma Jean
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@whuber I guess I'm trying to reconcile the explanation with the example in the text. It looks like the number given by the rule of 4 (8%) is not the maximum because it is smaller than the 13% calculated by taking the derivative.
$endgroup$
– Great38
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
Isn't that the very meaning of maximum: everything else is smaller??
$endgroup$
– whuber♦
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
Is it a joke that approximation (0.08) turns out to be close to 0.13? Or I misunderstood something?
$endgroup$
– user158565
7 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
$begingroup$
In the logisitic regression chapter of "Data Analysis Using Regression and
Multilevel/Hierarchical Models" by Gelman and Hill, The "Divide by 4" rule is presented to approximate average marginal effects.
Essentially, dividing the estimated log-odds ratio gives the maximum slope (or the maximum change in probabilities) of the logistic function.
Since the text above states that the "divide by 4 rule" gives the maximum change in $P(y=1)$ with a unit change in x, why is the estimated 8% less than the 13% calculated from actually taking the derivative of the logistic function in the example given?
Does the "divide by 4 rule" actually give the upper bound marginal effect?
Other "divide by 4" resources:
- Using the "Divide by 4 Rule" to Interpret Logistic Regression Coefficients
- Divide by 4 Rule for Marginal Effects - Econometric Sense
- http://vulstats.ucsd.edu/pdf/Gelman.ch-05.logistic-regression.pdf
logistic regression-coefficients odds-ratio logistic-curve model-interpretation
$endgroup$
In the logisitic regression chapter of "Data Analysis Using Regression and
Multilevel/Hierarchical Models" by Gelman and Hill, The "Divide by 4" rule is presented to approximate average marginal effects.
Essentially, dividing the estimated log-odds ratio gives the maximum slope (or the maximum change in probabilities) of the logistic function.
Since the text above states that the "divide by 4 rule" gives the maximum change in $P(y=1)$ with a unit change in x, why is the estimated 8% less than the 13% calculated from actually taking the derivative of the logistic function in the example given?
Does the "divide by 4 rule" actually give the upper bound marginal effect?
Other "divide by 4" resources:
- Using the "Divide by 4 Rule" to Interpret Logistic Regression Coefficients
- Divide by 4 Rule for Marginal Effects - Econometric Sense
- http://vulstats.ucsd.edu/pdf/Gelman.ch-05.logistic-regression.pdf
logistic regression-coefficients odds-ratio logistic-curve model-interpretation
logistic regression-coefficients odds-ratio logistic-curve model-interpretation
asked 8 hours ago
Great38Great38
1,0385 silver badges16 bronze badges
1,0385 silver badges16 bronze badges
1
$begingroup$
Your question seems to come down to asking why the maximum slope of the logistic function occurs at $x=0.$ Is that really what you are after?
$endgroup$
– whuber♦
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@whuber I think they understand that part... I think they are asking why the estimated maximum marginal effect is beta/4 = 0.08 yet the text suggests that the actual derivative = 0.13.
$endgroup$
– Emma Jean
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@whuber I guess I'm trying to reconcile the explanation with the example in the text. It looks like the number given by the rule of 4 (8%) is not the maximum because it is smaller than the 13% calculated by taking the derivative.
$endgroup$
– Great38
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
Isn't that the very meaning of maximum: everything else is smaller??
$endgroup$
– whuber♦
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
Is it a joke that approximation (0.08) turns out to be close to 0.13? Or I misunderstood something?
$endgroup$
– user158565
7 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
1
$begingroup$
Your question seems to come down to asking why the maximum slope of the logistic function occurs at $x=0.$ Is that really what you are after?
$endgroup$
– whuber♦
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@whuber I think they understand that part... I think they are asking why the estimated maximum marginal effect is beta/4 = 0.08 yet the text suggests that the actual derivative = 0.13.
$endgroup$
– Emma Jean
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@whuber I guess I'm trying to reconcile the explanation with the example in the text. It looks like the number given by the rule of 4 (8%) is not the maximum because it is smaller than the 13% calculated by taking the derivative.
$endgroup$
– Great38
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
Isn't that the very meaning of maximum: everything else is smaller??
$endgroup$
– whuber♦
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
Is it a joke that approximation (0.08) turns out to be close to 0.13? Or I misunderstood something?
$endgroup$
– user158565
7 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
Your question seems to come down to asking why the maximum slope of the logistic function occurs at $x=0.$ Is that really what you are after?
$endgroup$
– whuber♦
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
Your question seems to come down to asking why the maximum slope of the logistic function occurs at $x=0.$ Is that really what you are after?
$endgroup$
– whuber♦
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@whuber I think they understand that part... I think they are asking why the estimated maximum marginal effect is beta/4 = 0.08 yet the text suggests that the actual derivative = 0.13.
$endgroup$
– Emma Jean
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@whuber I think they understand that part... I think they are asking why the estimated maximum marginal effect is beta/4 = 0.08 yet the text suggests that the actual derivative = 0.13.
$endgroup$
– Emma Jean
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@whuber I guess I'm trying to reconcile the explanation with the example in the text. It looks like the number given by the rule of 4 (8%) is not the maximum because it is smaller than the 13% calculated by taking the derivative.
$endgroup$
– Great38
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@whuber I guess I'm trying to reconcile the explanation with the example in the text. It looks like the number given by the rule of 4 (8%) is not the maximum because it is smaller than the 13% calculated by taking the derivative.
$endgroup$
– Great38
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
Isn't that the very meaning of maximum: everything else is smaller??
$endgroup$
– whuber♦
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
Isn't that the very meaning of maximum: everything else is smaller??
$endgroup$
– whuber♦
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
Is it a joke that approximation (0.08) turns out to be close to 0.13? Or I misunderstood something?
$endgroup$
– user158565
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
Is it a joke that approximation (0.08) turns out to be close to 0.13? Or I misunderstood something?
$endgroup$
– user158565
7 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
I think it's a typo.
The derivative of the logistic curve with respect to $x$ is:
$$
fracbetamathrme^alpha + beta xleft(1 + mathrme^alpha + beta xright)^2
$$
So for their example where $alpha = -1.40, beta = 0.33$ it is:
$$
frac0.33mathrme^-1.40 + 0.33 xleft(1 + mathrme^-1.40 + 0.33 xright)^2
$$
Evaluated at the mean $barx=3.1$ gives:
$$
frac0.33mathrme^-1.40 + 0.33 cdot 3.1left(1 + mathrme^-1.40 + 0.33cdot 3.1right)^2 = 0.0796367
$$
This result is very close to the maximum slope of $0.33/4 = 0.0825$ which is attained at $x=-fracalphabeta=4.24$, supporting their claim.
On page 82, they write
But $0.33mathrme^-0.39/left(1+mathrme^-0.39right)^2neq 0.13$. Instead, it's around $0.08$, as shown above.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
For a continuous variable $x$, the marginal effect of $x$ in a logit model is
$$Lambda(alpha + beta x)cdot left[1-Lambda(alpha + beta x)right]cdotbeta = p cdot (1 - p) cdot beta,$$ where the inverse logit function is
$$Lambda(z)=fracexpz1+expz.$$
Here $p$ is a probability, so the factor $pcdot (1-p)$ is maximized when $p=0.5$ at $0.25$, which is where the $frac14$ comes from. Multiplying by the coefficient gives you the upper bound on the marginal effect. Here it is
$$0.25cdot0.33 =0.0825.$$
Calculating the marginal effect at the mean income yields,
$$mathbfinvlogit(-1.40 + 0.33 cdot 3.1)cdot left(1-mathbfinvlogit(-1.40 + 0.33 cdot3.1)right)cdot 0.33 = 0.07963666$$
These are pretty close, with the approximate maximum marginal effect bounding the marginal effect at the mean.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "65"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstats.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f415928%2fdoes-the-divide-by-4-rule-give-the-upper-bound-marginal-effect%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
I think it's a typo.
The derivative of the logistic curve with respect to $x$ is:
$$
fracbetamathrme^alpha + beta xleft(1 + mathrme^alpha + beta xright)^2
$$
So for their example where $alpha = -1.40, beta = 0.33$ it is:
$$
frac0.33mathrme^-1.40 + 0.33 xleft(1 + mathrme^-1.40 + 0.33 xright)^2
$$
Evaluated at the mean $barx=3.1$ gives:
$$
frac0.33mathrme^-1.40 + 0.33 cdot 3.1left(1 + mathrme^-1.40 + 0.33cdot 3.1right)^2 = 0.0796367
$$
This result is very close to the maximum slope of $0.33/4 = 0.0825$ which is attained at $x=-fracalphabeta=4.24$, supporting their claim.
On page 82, they write
But $0.33mathrme^-0.39/left(1+mathrme^-0.39right)^2neq 0.13$. Instead, it's around $0.08$, as shown above.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I think it's a typo.
The derivative of the logistic curve with respect to $x$ is:
$$
fracbetamathrme^alpha + beta xleft(1 + mathrme^alpha + beta xright)^2
$$
So for their example where $alpha = -1.40, beta = 0.33$ it is:
$$
frac0.33mathrme^-1.40 + 0.33 xleft(1 + mathrme^-1.40 + 0.33 xright)^2
$$
Evaluated at the mean $barx=3.1$ gives:
$$
frac0.33mathrme^-1.40 + 0.33 cdot 3.1left(1 + mathrme^-1.40 + 0.33cdot 3.1right)^2 = 0.0796367
$$
This result is very close to the maximum slope of $0.33/4 = 0.0825$ which is attained at $x=-fracalphabeta=4.24$, supporting their claim.
On page 82, they write
But $0.33mathrme^-0.39/left(1+mathrme^-0.39right)^2neq 0.13$. Instead, it's around $0.08$, as shown above.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I think it's a typo.
The derivative of the logistic curve with respect to $x$ is:
$$
fracbetamathrme^alpha + beta xleft(1 + mathrme^alpha + beta xright)^2
$$
So for their example where $alpha = -1.40, beta = 0.33$ it is:
$$
frac0.33mathrme^-1.40 + 0.33 xleft(1 + mathrme^-1.40 + 0.33 xright)^2
$$
Evaluated at the mean $barx=3.1$ gives:
$$
frac0.33mathrme^-1.40 + 0.33 cdot 3.1left(1 + mathrme^-1.40 + 0.33cdot 3.1right)^2 = 0.0796367
$$
This result is very close to the maximum slope of $0.33/4 = 0.0825$ which is attained at $x=-fracalphabeta=4.24$, supporting their claim.
On page 82, they write
But $0.33mathrme^-0.39/left(1+mathrme^-0.39right)^2neq 0.13$. Instead, it's around $0.08$, as shown above.
$endgroup$
I think it's a typo.
The derivative of the logistic curve with respect to $x$ is:
$$
fracbetamathrme^alpha + beta xleft(1 + mathrme^alpha + beta xright)^2
$$
So for their example where $alpha = -1.40, beta = 0.33$ it is:
$$
frac0.33mathrme^-1.40 + 0.33 xleft(1 + mathrme^-1.40 + 0.33 xright)^2
$$
Evaluated at the mean $barx=3.1$ gives:
$$
frac0.33mathrme^-1.40 + 0.33 cdot 3.1left(1 + mathrme^-1.40 + 0.33cdot 3.1right)^2 = 0.0796367
$$
This result is very close to the maximum slope of $0.33/4 = 0.0825$ which is attained at $x=-fracalphabeta=4.24$, supporting their claim.
On page 82, they write
But $0.33mathrme^-0.39/left(1+mathrme^-0.39right)^2neq 0.13$. Instead, it's around $0.08$, as shown above.
edited 6 hours ago
answered 6 hours ago
COOLSerdashCOOLSerdash
17.2k7 gold badges53 silver badges100 bronze badges
17.2k7 gold badges53 silver badges100 bronze badges
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
For a continuous variable $x$, the marginal effect of $x$ in a logit model is
$$Lambda(alpha + beta x)cdot left[1-Lambda(alpha + beta x)right]cdotbeta = p cdot (1 - p) cdot beta,$$ where the inverse logit function is
$$Lambda(z)=fracexpz1+expz.$$
Here $p$ is a probability, so the factor $pcdot (1-p)$ is maximized when $p=0.5$ at $0.25$, which is where the $frac14$ comes from. Multiplying by the coefficient gives you the upper bound on the marginal effect. Here it is
$$0.25cdot0.33 =0.0825.$$
Calculating the marginal effect at the mean income yields,
$$mathbfinvlogit(-1.40 + 0.33 cdot 3.1)cdot left(1-mathbfinvlogit(-1.40 + 0.33 cdot3.1)right)cdot 0.33 = 0.07963666$$
These are pretty close, with the approximate maximum marginal effect bounding the marginal effect at the mean.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
For a continuous variable $x$, the marginal effect of $x$ in a logit model is
$$Lambda(alpha + beta x)cdot left[1-Lambda(alpha + beta x)right]cdotbeta = p cdot (1 - p) cdot beta,$$ where the inverse logit function is
$$Lambda(z)=fracexpz1+expz.$$
Here $p$ is a probability, so the factor $pcdot (1-p)$ is maximized when $p=0.5$ at $0.25$, which is where the $frac14$ comes from. Multiplying by the coefficient gives you the upper bound on the marginal effect. Here it is
$$0.25cdot0.33 =0.0825.$$
Calculating the marginal effect at the mean income yields,
$$mathbfinvlogit(-1.40 + 0.33 cdot 3.1)cdot left(1-mathbfinvlogit(-1.40 + 0.33 cdot3.1)right)cdot 0.33 = 0.07963666$$
These are pretty close, with the approximate maximum marginal effect bounding the marginal effect at the mean.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
For a continuous variable $x$, the marginal effect of $x$ in a logit model is
$$Lambda(alpha + beta x)cdot left[1-Lambda(alpha + beta x)right]cdotbeta = p cdot (1 - p) cdot beta,$$ where the inverse logit function is
$$Lambda(z)=fracexpz1+expz.$$
Here $p$ is a probability, so the factor $pcdot (1-p)$ is maximized when $p=0.5$ at $0.25$, which is where the $frac14$ comes from. Multiplying by the coefficient gives you the upper bound on the marginal effect. Here it is
$$0.25cdot0.33 =0.0825.$$
Calculating the marginal effect at the mean income yields,
$$mathbfinvlogit(-1.40 + 0.33 cdot 3.1)cdot left(1-mathbfinvlogit(-1.40 + 0.33 cdot3.1)right)cdot 0.33 = 0.07963666$$
These are pretty close, with the approximate maximum marginal effect bounding the marginal effect at the mean.
$endgroup$
For a continuous variable $x$, the marginal effect of $x$ in a logit model is
$$Lambda(alpha + beta x)cdot left[1-Lambda(alpha + beta x)right]cdotbeta = p cdot (1 - p) cdot beta,$$ where the inverse logit function is
$$Lambda(z)=fracexpz1+expz.$$
Here $p$ is a probability, so the factor $pcdot (1-p)$ is maximized when $p=0.5$ at $0.25$, which is where the $frac14$ comes from. Multiplying by the coefficient gives you the upper bound on the marginal effect. Here it is
$$0.25cdot0.33 =0.0825.$$
Calculating the marginal effect at the mean income yields,
$$mathbfinvlogit(-1.40 + 0.33 cdot 3.1)cdot left(1-mathbfinvlogit(-1.40 + 0.33 cdot3.1)right)cdot 0.33 = 0.07963666$$
These are pretty close, with the approximate maximum marginal effect bounding the marginal effect at the mean.
edited 4 hours ago
answered 6 hours ago
Dimitriy V. MasterovDimitriy V. Masterov
21.6k1 gold badge42 silver badges98 bronze badges
21.6k1 gold badge42 silver badges98 bronze badges
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Cross Validated!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstats.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f415928%2fdoes-the-divide-by-4-rule-give-the-upper-bound-marginal-effect%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
$begingroup$
Your question seems to come down to asking why the maximum slope of the logistic function occurs at $x=0.$ Is that really what you are after?
$endgroup$
– whuber♦
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@whuber I think they understand that part... I think they are asking why the estimated maximum marginal effect is beta/4 = 0.08 yet the text suggests that the actual derivative = 0.13.
$endgroup$
– Emma Jean
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@whuber I guess I'm trying to reconcile the explanation with the example in the text. It looks like the number given by the rule of 4 (8%) is not the maximum because it is smaller than the 13% calculated by taking the derivative.
$endgroup$
– Great38
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
Isn't that the very meaning of maximum: everything else is smaller??
$endgroup$
– whuber♦
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
Is it a joke that approximation (0.08) turns out to be close to 0.13? Or I misunderstood something?
$endgroup$
– user158565
7 hours ago