[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date index][Thread index]
Re: st: possible problem with GLM command
Thanks for you suggestion - it did solve my problem.
> Just a quick thought as to what may be the problem. Using the log link
> with the bernoulli family (binomial with a response of 1 or 0) results
> in fitted values that may lie outside the 1/0 bounds, which is an
> assumption of the Bernoulli parameterization of the binomial family.
> Because of this, and depending on the specific nature of the data,
> convergence problems may occur. You may find that using the -irls-
> option clears up the problem.
> James Hardin, who co-authored the glm command with me, wrote a program
> for binomial models with non-standard links some years back. It was
> published in the STB. Fitted values that exceeded 1 or 0 were
> internally truncated at each iteration. I forget the name of the
> program, but you can probably find it by using the -lookup binomial-
> command in Stata. It should work.
> Joe Hilbe
> > Dear all
> > Is anyone aware of a problem with the GLM command?
> > I have recommended to a number of my collegues that they fit a GLM
> > with a log link and binomial error term when analysing cross-
> > sectional data with a dichotomous outcome. The benefit of this is
> > that the exponental of the paramater estimate is equivalent to the
> > relative prevalence. [I'm not looking for a debate on the wisdom of
> > this].
> > A number of them have reported a problem with their models when they
> > have several independent variables. For example I have a model with
> > three categorical predictors: agegroup (3 levels), sex (2 levels)
> > and housing (2 levels).
> > The problem is that I get a message indicating that the log
> > likelihood function is not concave. Although this is possible I am
> > able to run the model without any problems is SAS. Furthermore,
> > there doesn't seem to be anything in the data that suggest there
> > would be a problem, i.e. all covariate patterns have a reasonable
> > number of observations for each level of the outcome of interest.
> > Surprisingly to me, the problem goes away if I add an interaction
> > term for sex and housing, although the interaction term is not
> > statistically significant and the data suggest it should be.
> > Any suggestions are greatly appreciated.
> > Thanks
> > Patrick
> * 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/
The Medical School
The University of Manchester
Manchester M13 9PT UK
Phone: +44 0161 275 5953
Fax: +44 0161 275 7712
* For searches and help try: