Original Article

Comparison of the accuracy of beta-binomial, multinomial, dirichlet-multinomial, and ordinal regression in modelling quality of life data

Abstract

Background & Aim: Questionnaires are used mostly as a tool in medical research. Due to the different varieties of questionnaires, we may face different score distributions. In many cases multiple linear regression assumptions are violated. Beta-binomial regression model has the high flexibility and compatibility with this situation. In previous studies there were no comparison between beta-binomial accuracy and other models to fitting quality of life data. So in this study, our aim is to compare the accuracy of models to prediction.
Methods & Materials: In this cross-sectional study we collected the quality of life data from 511 healthy women in Qazvin, Iran. The data were used to compare accuracy of betabinomial model and with some other models. Since beta-binomial considers the discrete response variable, so it should be compared with other similar models which are mostly used such as multinomial, dirichlet-multinomial and ordinal regression models. The main method that we used in our study was cross-validation to determine the accuracy of different models. To compare the different aspects, vast variety of situations were made and considered.
Results: Regarding to the accuracy of models that were obtained by cross-validation in different situations, beta-binomial model had better accuracy among all models.
Conclusion: According to the results, we have concluded that beta-binomial model is more accurate in prediction and fitting to the quality of data than the other models. The main advantages of this model are its simplicity, more efficacy and accuracy than the similar models.

1. Fayers PM, Machin D. Multi‐Item Scales. Quality of life: assessment, analysis and interpretation. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2000:72- 90.
2. Fayers PM, Machin D. Quality of life: the assessment, analysis and interpretation of patientreported outcomes: John Wiley & Sons; 2013.
3. Mesbah M, Cole BF, Lee MLT. Statistical methods for quality of life studies: design, measurements and analysis: Springer Science & Business Media; 2013.
4. Cox DR, Fitzpatrick R, Fletcher A, Gore S, Spiegelhalter D, Jones D. Quality-of-life assessment: can we keep it simple? J Royal Stat Soc Series A. 1992:353-93.
5. Walters SJ, Campbell MJ, Lall R. Design and analysis of trials with quality of life as an outcome: a practical guide. J Biopharm Stat. 2001;11(3):155-76.
6. Arostegui I, Nunez-Anton V, Quintana JM. Analysis of the short form-36 (SF-36): the betabinomial distribution approach. Stat Med. 2007;26(6):1318-42.
7. Madariaga IA, Antón VAN. Aspectos estadísticos del Cuestionario de Calidad de Vida relacionada con salud Short Form-36 (SF-36). Estadística española. 2008;50(167):147-92.
8. Arostegui I, Núñez-Anton V. Aspectos Estadísticos del Cuestionario de Calidad de Vida relacionada con la salud Short Form-36 (SF-36). Estadística española. 2008;50(167):147-92.
9. Arostegui I, Núñez-Antón V, editors. Alternative modelling approaches for the SF-36 health questionnaire. Proceedings of the 22nd International Workshop on Statistical Modelling; 2007: Institut d’Estadística de Catalunya, Barcelona.
10. Arostegui I, Padierna A, Quintana JM. Assessment of HRQoL in patients with eating disorders by the beta‐binomial regression approach. Int J Eat Disord. 2010;43(5):455-63.
11. Arostegui I, Núñez-Antón V, Quintana JM. Statistical approaches to analyse patient-reported outcomes as response variables: An application to health-related quality of life. Statistical methods in medical research. 2012;21(2):189-214.
12. Kaviani H, Seyfourian H, Sharifi V, Ebrahimkhani N. Reliability and validity of Anxiety and Depression Hospital Scales (HADS) &58; Iranian patients with anxiety and depression disorders. Tehran Uni Med J. 2009;67(5):379-85.
13. Montazeri A, Vahdaninia M, Mousavi SJ, Omidvari S. The Iranian version of 12-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12): factor structure, internal consistency and construct validity. BMC Pub Health. 2009;9:341.
14. Ihaka R, Gentleman R. R: a language for data analysis and graphics. J Comput Graph Stat. 1996;5(3):299-314.
15. Royston P, Altman DG, Sauerbrei W. Dichotomizing continuous predictors in multiple regression: a bad idea. Stat Med. 2006;25(1):127- 41.
16. Altman DG, Lyman GH. Methodological challenges in the evaluation of prognostic factors in breast cancer. Prognostic variables in nodenegative and node-positive breast cancer: Springer; 1998:379-93.
17. Barrio I, Arostegui I, Rodríguez-Álvarez MX, Quintana JM. A new approach to categorising continuous variables in prediction models: Proposal and validation. Stat Method Med Res. 2017;26(6):2586-602.
Files
IssueVol 4 No 2 (2018) QRcode
SectionOriginal Article(s)
Keywords
Regression Analysis Surveys and Questionnaires Quality of Life Women Statistical Model.
Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
1.
Ghanbari A, Yekaninejad MS, Pakpour A, Sanjari S, Nourijelyani K. Comparison of the accuracy of beta-binomial, multinomial, dirichlet-multinomial, and ordinal regression in modelling quality of life data. JBE. 2018;4(2):61-71.