Statalist The Stata Listserver


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

Re: st: NBREG for ordinal scales


From   "Matthew C. Johnson" <stdmcj18@shsu.edu>
To   statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu
Subject   Re: st: NBREG for ordinal scales
Date   Wed, 11 Oct 2006 17:18:50 -0500 (CDT)

"It is not inconceivable to me that a case could be made for a
count model, but it seems like you ought to be able (or forced) to
justify it rather than just do it!"

That is one of my primary problems. I see a number of articles using count
models for outcome variables such as those presented earlier, but no
justification was provided for doing so other than the fact that the DV
has a Poisson or negative binomial distribution. I assume that they should
provide justification for using these techniques, but does the
justification exist?

> At 03:59 PM 10/11/2006, Austin Nichols wrote:
>>Nick et al.--
>>The Poisson model really only needs E(y|x)=exp(xb) to get consistent
>>estimates of b, which is why it is the model of choice with a
>>nonnegative dependent variable (esp. one that is sometimes zero, and
>>is theoretically unbounded above).  See Wooldridge
>>(http://www.stata.com/bookstore/cspd.html) p.651 and surrounding text:
>>"A nice property of the Poisson QMLE is that it retains some
>>efficiency for certain departures from the Poisson assumption,"  etc.
>>
>>This addresses why one would use a "count model" for non-count data,
>>but it does not address why one would use Poisson for an outcome
>>variable that is an ordinal scale, which I would think is crying out
>>for an ordered logit, or the like:
>>http://www.nd.edu/~rwilliam/gologit2
>
> Actually, there is an added wrinkle in the original problem: ordinal
> variables were summed to create composite scales.  That summing and
> subsequent use of count models would still seem to be
> problematic.  On the other hand, suppose the responses had been
> worded 0 = never, 1 = a few times, 2 = a moderate amount, and 3 = a
> lot.  Would the summation seem more questionable then, or less
> so?  And what method would be better - a count model or plain old
> OLS?  It is not inconceivable to me that a case could be made for a
> count model, but it seems like you ought to be able (or forced) to
> justify it rather than just do it!


>
>
> -------------------------------------------
> Richard Williams, Notre Dame Dept of Sociology
> OFFICE: (574)631-6668, (574)631-6463
> FAX:    (574)288-4373
> HOME:   (574)289-5227
> EMAIL:  Richard.A.Williams.5@ND.Edu
> WWW (personal):    http://www.nd.edu/~rwilliam
> WWW (department):    http://www.nd.edu/~soc
>
> *
> *   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/
>

*
*   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