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

From |
"Clive Nicholas" <Clive.Nicholas@newcastle.ac.uk> |

To |
statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu |

Subject |
Re: st: fixed effects and random effects |

Date |
Wed, 1 Dec 2004 01:08:08 -0000 (GMT) |

Sunil W wrote: > One, when I run a random effects model on my data, I > get sigma_u =0. How do I interpret this? Does it mean > that the random effects model is not appropriate for > this data? The fixed effect model seems to work fine. [...] I can't answer your second question, but I'll tackle this one. The -sigma_u- estimate is zero, which implies that your model contains no time-invariant errors. It's difficult to say whether this is plausible or not, since you don't tell us what kind of models you're fitting to what kind of data you have. To understand whether or not fitting the random-effects model is sensible, ask yourself this question: "Are my observations sampled _at random_ from the larger population to which it belongs?" If it is, then you should have good reason to expect your model's u_i and X-variables to be uncorrelated. If you find that they _are_ correlated (perhaps because your observations were _not_ chosen randomly), then the RE model is unlikely to be valid. At that point, you'll almost certainly have to switch to FE. In Stata, there is a quick and easy way to compare your RE and FE formulations of the same model (and data): (1) run your FE model; (2) then run your RE model; and (3) run -xthausman- to conduct a null hypothesis test of the difference in the coefficients. If H_0 is rejected, the test suggests (but does not _prove_) that the use of RE is invalid. However, I think it's important for you to understand why running such a quick and easy test like this is useful, rather than just running it willy-nilly and accepting the result as gospel truth. I hope that helps. :) CLIVE NICHOLAS |t: 0(044)7903 397793 Politics |e: clive.nicholas@ncl.ac.uk Newcastle University |http://www.ncl.ac.uk/geps * * 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/

**References**:**st: fixed effects and random effects***From:*Sunil W <wsunny@yahoo.com>

- Prev by Date:
**st: RE: Why no RMSE in -ereturn list- after -areg-?** - Next by Date:
**st: RE: fixed effects and random effects** - Previous by thread:
**st: Why no RMSE in -ereturn list- after -areg-?** - Next by thread:
**st: RE: fixed effects and random effects** - Index(es):

© Copyright 1996–2016 StataCorp LP | Terms of use | Privacy | Contact us | What's new | Site index |