Abstract
Researchers often use outcome-dependent sampling to study the exposure-outcome association. The case-control study is a widely used example of outcome-dependent sampling when the outcome is binary. When the outcome is ordinal, standard ordinal regression models generally produce biased coefficients when the sampling fractions depend on the values of the outcome variable. To address this problem, we studied the performance of survey-weighted ordinal regression models with weights inversely proportional to the sampling fractions. Through an extensive simulation study, we compared the performance of four ordinal regression models (SM: stereotype model; AC: adjacent-category logit model; CR: continuation-ratio logit model; and CM: cumulative logit model), with and without sampling weights under outcome-dependent sampling. We observed that when using weights, all four models produced estimates with negligible bias of all regression coefficients. Without weights, only stereotype model and adjacent-category logit model produced estimates with negligible to low bias for all coefficients except for the intercepts in all scenarios. In one scenario, the unweighted continuation-ratio logit model also produced estimates with low bias. The weighted stereotype model and adjacent-category logit model also produced estimates with lower relative root mean square errors compared to the unweighted models in most scenarios. In some of the scenarios with unevenly distributed categories, the weighted continuation-ratio logit model and cumulative logit model produced estimates with lower relative root mean square errors compared to the respective unweighted models. We used a study of knee osteoarthritis as an example.