Toggle Main Menu Toggle Search

Open Access padlockePrints

Why do we still use stepwise modelling in ecology and behaviour?

Lookup NU author(s): Professor Mark WhittinghamORCiD



1. The biases and shortcomings of stepwise multiple regression are well established within the statistical literature. However, an examination of papers published in 2004 by three leading ecological and behavioural journals suggested that the use of this technique remains widespread: of 65 papers in which a multiple regression approach was used, 57% of studies used a stepwise procedure. 2. The principal drawbacks of stepwise multiple regression include bias in parameter estimation, inconsistencies among model selection algorithms, an inherent (but often overlooked) problem of multiple hypothesis testing, and an inappropriate focus or reliance on a single best model. We discuss each of these issues with examples. 3. We use a worked example of data on yellowhammer distribution collected over 4 years to highlight the pitfalls of stepwise regression. We show that stepwise regression allows models containing significant predictors to be obtained from each year's data. In spite of the significance of the selected models, they vary substantially between years and suggest patterns that are at odds with those determined by analysing the full, 4-year data set. 4. An information theoretic (IT) analysis of the yellowhammer data set illustrates why the varying outcomes of stepwise analyses arise. In particular, the IT approach identifies large numbers of competing models that could describe the data equally well, showing that no one model should be relied upon for inference. © 2006 The Authors.

Publication metadata

Author(s): Whittingham MJ, Stephens PA, Bradbury RB, Freckleton RP

Publication type: Article

Publication status: Published

Journal: Journal of Animal Ecology

Year: 2006

Volume: 75

Issue: 5

Pages: 1182-1189

ISSN (print): 0021-8790

ISSN (electronic): 1365-2656

Publisher: Wiley-Blackwell Publishing Ltd.


DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2656.2006.01141.x

PubMed id: 16922854


Altmetrics provided by Altmetric