Stata The Stata listserver
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date index][Thread index]

RE: st: plot predicted effects after regression


From   "Nick Cox" <n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk>
To   <statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu>
Subject   RE: st: plot predicted effects after regression
Date   Sat, 8 May 2004 20:11:37 +0100

This is a question for StataCorp, so I 
have to guess at an answer. I doubt that 
there is a strong programming objection to what you 
suggest. Rather, the aim of -adjust- 
is to tabulate sets of predictions, and 
what you suggest would make the default 
output somewhat trivial. In other words, 
it looks like a design issue, not a syntax one. 

The first and last time I wanted predictions 
as function of one covariate, all others 
being set to their means, it irritated 
me that you had to talk your way past 
that -by()- requirement. So I wrote a wrapper 
that does it for me, but hesitated at
making that public, given the labour of writing 
the help and a worry that it might not be 
general enough to bear the weight some users 
might put on it. That was January 2003, 
and I don't recall anyone raising the 
matter on Statalist before now, so it's not clear 
how often this is needed. 

Nick 
n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu
> [mailto:owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu]On Behalf Of Richard
> Williams
> Sent: 08 May 2004 19:54
> To: statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu; statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu
> Subject: RE: st: plot predicted effects after regression
> 
> 
> At 06:58 PM 5/8/2004 +0100, Nick Cox wrote:
> >You can use -adjust-: you just need to talk
> >your way past the requirement for a -by()-
> >option (unless that is part of what you want).
> 
> As a sidelight, I've never liked or understood the requirement that 
> -adjust- include the -by- parameter; why not just default to 
> analyzing all 
> cases at once instead of requiring that calculations be done for 
> subgroups?  It can be worked around, but it is a minor 
> nuisance so why 
> require it in the first place?  If dropping the -by- 
> requirement would 
> create some sort of compatibility problem, perhaps some sort 
> of optional 
> parameter to analyze all selected cases could be added instead.

*
*   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/



© Copyright 1996–2014 StataCorp LP   |   Terms of use   |   Privacy   |   Contact us   |   What's new   |   Site index