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

Re: st: RE: f-test after -qreg- or -bsqreg-


From   n j cox <[email protected]>
To   [email protected]
Subject   Re: st: RE: f-test after -qreg- or -bsqreg-
Date   Tue, 13 Dec 2005 11:25:37 +0000

Exactly what I expected, if CLRM means what I guess it means.
But if so, why do you expect the F test to still work?

Niels Bohr had a story of a physicist who had a horseshoe
over his door for good luck, but said -- when reproached
for superstitious nonsense -- "I've been told
that it works even if you don't believe in it."
Is that your position?

Nick
[email protected]

M. Haider Hussain

Errors were non-normally distributed, that's why I'm using -qreg-. In
other words, I'm not prepared to enforce CLRM assumptions.

Haider
Social Policy and Development Center
Karachi, Pakistan.

> What model is this based on? Gaussian/normal
> errors? If you are prepared to buy that, why
> are you doing -qreg-?
>
> Nick
> [email protected]
>
> M. Haider Hussain
>
> > After running bootstrapped quantile regression with k=15, n=5401, I
> > obtained Pseudo R2=0.3161. If I want to compute the joint significance
> > of the regressors, can I still use the F-test given by
> >
> > F=[r2/(k-1)]/[(1-r2)/(n-k)]
> >
> > If this isn't the case, what's the measure of joint significance of
> > the regressors after -qreg- / -bsqreg-?

*
*   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 1996–2024 StataCorp LLC   |   Terms of use   |   Privacy   |   Contact us   |   What's new   |   Site index