The Difference Between Instability and Uncertainty: Comment on Young and Holsteen (2017)

Adam Slez

Sociological Methods & Research, 2019, vol. 48, issue 2, 400-430

Abstract: Young and Holsteen (YH) introduce a number of tools for evaluating model uncertainty. In so doing, they are careful to differentiate their method from existing forms of model averaging. The fundamental difference lies in the way in which the underlying estimates are weighted. Whereas standard approaches to model averaging assign higher weight to better fitting models, the YH method weights all models equally. As I show, this is a nontrivial distinction, in that the two sets of procedures tend to produce radically different results. Drawing on both simulation and real-world examples, I demonstrate that in failing to distinguish between numerical variation and statistical uncertainty, the procedure proposed by YH will tend to overstate the amount of uncertainty resulting from variation across models. In standard circumstances, the quality of estimates produced using this method will tend to be objectively worse than that of conventional alternatives.

Keywords: model averaging; model uncertainty; model robustness; model selection; multimodel inference (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2019
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (7)

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0049124117729704 (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:sae:somere:v:48:y:2019:i:2:p:400-430

DOI: 10.1177/0049124117729704

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Sociological Methods & Research
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().