Comparing Partial Likelihood and Robust Estimation Methods for the Cox Regression Model

Bruce A. Desmarais and Jeffrey J. Harden

Political Analysis, 2012, vol. 20, issue 1, 113-135

Abstract: The Cox proportional hazards model is ubiquitous in time-to-event studies of political processes. Plausible deviations from correct specification and operationalization caused by problems such as measurement error or omitted variables can produce substantial bias when the Cox model is estimated by conventional partial likelihood maximization (PLM). One alternative is an iteratively reweighted robust (IRR) estimator, which can reduce this bias. However, the utility of IRR is limited by the fact that there is currently no method for determining whether PLM or IRR is more appropriate for a particular sample of data. Here, we develop and evaluate a novel test for selecting between the two estimators. Then, we apply the test to political science data. We demonstrate that PLM and IRR can each be optimal, that our test is effective in choosing between them, and that substantive conclusions can depend on which one is used.

Date: 2012
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/ ... type/journal_article link to article abstract page (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:cup:polals:v:20:y:2012:i:01:p:113-135_01

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Political Analysis from Cambridge University Press Cambridge University Press, UPH, Shaftesbury Road, Cambridge CB2 8BS UK.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Kirk Stebbing ().