Skip Navigation


American Journal of Epidemiology Advance Access originally published online on August 10, 2005
American Journal of Epidemiology 2005 162(6):602-603; doi:10.1093/aje/kwi251
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
162/6/602    most recent
kwi251v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (1)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kaufman, J. S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Kaufman, J. S.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

American Journal of Epidemiology Copyright © 2005 by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health All rights reserved

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

RE: "APPROPRIATE ASSESSMENT OF NEIGHBORHOOD EFFECTS ON INDIVIDUAL HEALTH: INTEGRATING RANDOM AND FIXED EFFECTS IN MULTILEVEL LOGISTIC REGRESSION"

Jay S. Kaufman

Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7435

The first 10% of the full text of this article appears below.

Larsen and Merlo (1Go) propose some novel transformations to represent effects in multilevel logistic regression. These measures, the "median odds ratio" and "interval odds ratio," are functions of the estimated slope coefficients and the estimated cluster-level variance (i.e., random effect), and they have attractive interpretations for the effects of cluster-level predictors. Irrespective of the merits of these new measures, I find the explanation provided for why traditional approaches are inadequate to be somewhat less persuasive.

I'll consider binary predictors (exposed coded as 1, and unexposed . . . [Full Text of this Article]


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev.Home page
S. L. Pruitt, M. J. Shim, P. D. Mullen, S. W. Vernon, and B. C. Amick III
Association of Area Socioeconomic Status and Breast, Cervical, and Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review
Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., October 1, 2009; 18(10): 2579 - 2599.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am J EpidemiolHome page
K. Larsen and J. Merlo
THE AUTHORS REPLY
Am. J. Epidemiol., September 15, 2005; 162(6): 603 - 603.
[Full Text] [PDF]