Evaluating alternate discrete choice frameworks for modeling ordinal discrete variables.

There is considerable debate on the appropriate discrete choice framework for examining injury severity. Researchers in the safety field have employed ordered and unordered frameworks for examining the various factors influencing injury severity. The objective of the current study is to investigate the performance of the ordered and unordered response frameworks at a fundamental level. Towards this end, we undertake a comparison of the alternative frameworks by estimating ordered and unordered response models using data generated through ordered, unordered data and a combination of ordered and unordered data generation processes. We also examine the influence of aggregate sample shares on the appropriateness of the modeling framework. Rather than be limited by the aggregate sample shares in an empirical dataset, simulation allows us to explore the influence of a broad spectrum of sample shares on the performance of ordered and unordered frameworks. We also extend the data generation process based analysis to under reported data and compare the performance of the ordered and unordered response frameworks. Finally, based on these simulation exercises, we provide a discussion of the merits of the different approaches. The results clearly highlight the emergence of the generalized ordered logit model as a true equivalent ordered response model to the multinomial logit model for ordinal discrete variables.