USING THE CORRECT STATISTICAL TEST FOR THE EQUALITY OF REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS

Criminologists are often interested in examining interactive effects within a regression context. For example, “holding other relevant factors constant, is the effect of delinquent peers on one's own delinquent conduct the same for males and females?” or “is the effect of a given treatment program comparable between first-time and repeat offenders?” A frequent strategy in examining such interactive effects is to test for the difference between two regression coefficients across independent samples. That is, does b1= b2? Traditionally, criminologists have employed a t or z test for the difference between slopes in making these coefficient comparisons. While there is considerable consensus as to the appropriateness of this strategy, there has been some confusion in the criminological literature as to the correct estimator of the standard error of the difference, the standard deviation of the sampling distribution of coefficient differences, in the t or z formula. Criminologists have employed two different estimators of this standard deviation in their empirical work. In this note, we point out that one of these estimators is correct while the other is incorrect. The incorrect estimator biases one's hypothesis test in favor of rejecting the null hypothesis that b1= b2. Unfortunately, the use of this incorrect estimator of the standard error of the difference has been fairly widespread in criminology. We provide the formula for the correct statistical test and illustrate with two examples from the literature how the biased estimator can lead to incorrect conclusions.

[1]  Alex R. Piquero,et al.  Testing for the Equality of Maximum-Likelihood Regression Coefficients Between Two Independent Equations , 1998 .

[2]  G. Jarjoura The Conditional Effect of Social Class on the Dropout-Delinquency Relationship , 1996 .

[3]  S. J. Jang,et al.  Developmental patterns of sex differences in delinquency among African American adolescents: A test of the sex-invariance hypothesis , 1995 .

[4]  C. Clogg,et al.  Statistical Methods for Comparing Regression Coefficients Between Models , 1995, American Journal of Sociology.

[5]  Cassia Spohn,et al.  Rape law reform and the effect of victim characteristics on case processing , 1993 .

[6]  J. Hagan Destiny and Drift: Subcultural, Preferences, Status Attainments, and the Risks and Rewards of Youth , 1991 .

[7]  Celesta A. Albonetti Race and the probability of pleading guilty , 1990, Journal of Quantitative Criminology.

[8]  Edna Erez GENDER, REHABILITATION, AND PROBATION DECISIONS* , 1989 .

[9]  R. Paternoster,et al.  The Gender Gap in Theories of Deviance: Issues and Evidence , 1987 .

[10]  A. Gillis,et al.  Class in the Household: A Power-Control Theory of Gender and Delinquency , 1987, American Journal of Sociology.

[11]  A. Palloni,et al.  “CLUB FED” AND THE SENTENCING OF WHITE‐COLLAR OFFENDERS BEFORE AND AFTER WATERGATE , 1986 .

[12]  Ayala Cohen,et al.  Comparing Regression Coefficients Across Subsamples , 1983 .

[13]  Christy A. Visher Gender, Police Arrest Decisions, and Notions of Chivalry , 1983 .

[14]  D. Kleinbaum,et al.  Applied Regression Analysis and Other Multivariate Methods , 1978 .