Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Different Words, Same Song: Advice for Substantively Interpreting Duration Models

  • Benjamin T. Jones (a1) and Shawna K. Metzger (a2)

Abstract

The use of duration models in political science continues to grow, more than a decade after Box-Steffensmeier and Jones (2004). However, several common misconceptions about the models still persist. To improve scholars’ use and interpretation of duration models, we point out that they are a type of regression model and therefore follow the same rules as other more commonly used regression models. In this article, we present four maxims as guidelines. We survey the various duration model interpretation strategies and group them into four categories, which is an important organizational exercise that does not appear elsewhere. We then discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these strategies, noting that all are correct from a technical perspective. However, some strategies make more sense than others for nontechnical reasons, which ultimately informs best practices.

Copyright

References

Hide All
Austin, Peter C., and Hux, Janet E.. 2002. “A Brief Note on Overlapping Confidence Intervals.” Journal of Vascular Surgery 36 (1): 194–95.
Beck, Nathaniel, Katz, Jonathan, and Tucker, Richard. 1998. “Taking Time Seriously: Time-Series–Cross-Section Analysis with a Binary Dependent Variable.” American Journal of Political Science 42 (4): 1260–88.
Berry, William D., DeMeritt, Jacqueline H. R., and Esarey, Justin. 2010. “Testing for Interaction in Binary Logit and Probit Models: Is a Product Term Essential?American Journal of Political Science 54 (1): 248–66.
Bolsen, Toby, and Thornton, Judd R.. 2014. “Overlapping Confidence Intervals and Null Hypothesis Testing.” Newsletter of the APSA Experimental Section 4 (1): 1216.
Box-Steffensmeier, Janet M., and Jones, Bradford S.. 1997. “Time Is of the Essence: Event History Models in Political Science.” American Journal of Political Science 41 (4): 1414–61.
Box-Steffensmeier, Janet M., and Jones, Bradford S.. 2004. Event History Modeling: A Guide for Social Scientists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cleves, Mario, Gould, William, Gutierrez, Roberto, and Marchenko, Yulia. 2010. An Introduction to Survival Analysis Using Stata, third edition. College Station, TX: Stata Press.
Hanmer, Michael J., and Ozan Kalkan, Kerem. 2013. “Behind the Curve: Clarifying the Best Approach to Calculating Predicted Probabilities and Marginal Effects from Limited Dependent Variable Models.” American Journal of Political Science 57 (1): 263–77.
King, Gary, Tomz, Michael, and Wittenberg, Jason. 2000. “Making the Most of Statistical Analyses: Improving Interpretation and Presentation.” American Journal of Political Science 44 (2): 347–61.
Kropko, Jonathan, and Harden, Jeffrey J.. Forthcoming. “Beyond the Hazard Ratio: Generating Expected Durations from the Cox Proportional Hazards Model.” British Journal of Political Science.
Metzger, Shawna K., and Jones, Benjamin T.. 2019. “Getting Time Right: Using Cox Models and Probabilities to Interpret Binary Panel Data.” Working paper.
Park, Sunhee, and Hendry, David J.. 2015. “Reassessing Schoenfeld Residual Tests of Proportional Hazards in Political Science Event History Analyses.” American Journal of Political Science 59 (4): 1072–87.
Rainey, Carlisle. 2017. “Transformation-Induced Bias: Unbiased Coefficients Do Not Imply Unbiased Quantities of Interest.” Political Analysis 25 (3): 402409.
Schenker, Nathaniel, and Gentleman, Jane F.. 2001. “On Judging the Significance of Differences by Examining the Overlap between Confidence Intervals.” The American Statistician 55 (3): 182–86.
Singer, Judith D., and Willett, John B.. 2003. Applied Longitudinal Data Analysis: Modeling Change and Event Occurrence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Type Description Title
PDF
Supplementary materials

Jones and Metzger supplementary material
Appendix A

 PDF (957 KB)
957 KB

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed