[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date index][Thread index]

From |
"Theodoropoulos, N." <nt18@leicester.ac.uk> |

To |
<statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu> |

Subject |
st: zinb |

Date |
Sat, 22 Nov 2003 17:49:00 -0000 |

Dear Statalisters, I am using a zero inflated negative binomial model (zinb) and I get the following results: Fitting zip comparison model: Iteration 0: log likelihood = -37967.757 Iteration 4: log likelihood = -37030.893 Fitting constant-only model: Iteration 0: log likelihood = -46827.44 Iteration 9: log likelihood = -37967.757 (not concave) Fitting full model: Iteration 0: log likelihood = -37967.757 (not concave) Iteration 4: log likelihood = -37030.894 Zero-inflated negative binomial regression Number of obs = 21826 Nonzero obs = 14687 Zero obs = 7139 Inflation model = logit LR chi2(92) = 1873.73 Log likelihood = -37030.89 Prob > chi2 = 0.0000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ b2 | IRR Std. Err. z P>|z| [95% Conf. Interval] -------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- . . -------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- /lnalpha | -70.67075 28.69921 -2.46 0.014 -126.9202 -14.42133 -------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- alpha | 2.03e-31 5.83e-30 7.57e-56 5.46e-07 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Likelihood ratio test of alpha=0: chibar2(01) = 1.4e-03 Pr>=chibar2 = 0.4849 I know the zip command specifies that a zero-inflated Poisson comparison model should be fit and the LR test of the zero-inflated negative binomial model versus the nested zero-inflated Poisson model be included. In this case the LR test is positive and very small (reject Ho). Does this test suggest that once we allow for excess zeros (inflated Poisson), unobserved heterogeneity coming through a negative binomial model does not matter? Is my interpretation correct? In other words, is the null hypothesis for the LR test: Ho=overdispersion, versus Ha=Not Ho? We can also see that the estimated parameter alpha is positive but not significantly different from zero. This implies that the conditional mean is equal to the conditional variance and the zero inflated negative binomial model reduces to the zero-inflated Poisson model. Is the above testing adequate so that I can proceed with the zero-inflated Poisson model? I know there exists a Vuong test for discriminating between a Poisson and a zip and an nbreg and a zinb. In my case the Vuong test is in favour of the zero-inflated models. However, is there a test in Stata for discriminating between a zero-inflated Poisson model and a negative binomial model (Vuong, 1989)? Any comments will be highly appreciated, Regards Nick * * For searches and help try: * http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/res/findit.html * http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq * http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/

- Prev by Date:
**Re: st: multiple state surv. analysis** - Next by Date:
**st: overlaying 2 or more ciplot/option nolconfidence?** - Previous by thread:
**st: multiple state surv. analysis** - Next by thread:
**st: overlaying 2 or more ciplot/option nolconfidence?** - Index(es):

© Copyright 1996–2017 StataCorp LLC | Terms of use | Privacy | Contact us | What's new | Site index |