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

From |
ymarchenko@stata.com (Yulia Marchenko, StataCorp LP) |

To |
statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu |

Subject |
Re: st: -xtmelogit- question |

Date |
Mon, 24 Sep 2007 17:07:57 -0500 |

Garrard, Wendy M. <wendy.garrard@Vanderbilt.Edu> asks about the group information reported in the output after -xtmelogit-: > I am using -xtmelogit- to estimate a crossed-effects random intercept model. > The data represents responses from individuals who use services at different > agencies; those agencies operate in multiple counties. I want to identify the > county-specific effects and the agency-specific effects. There are 95 total > counties in TN, but only 70 have respondents; There are 20 agencies in the > data. (-tab- confirms this.) > > PROBLEM -- when I run the first command below , the groupings section of the > output show 70 counties but 93 agencies and the RE estimates for the var > output are puzzling (see the example output below my signature): > > . xtmelogit outcome varlist || tncounty: || agencynum: , options > > Yet, when I run this second version of the command, mimicking the new Stata10 > manual for treating the agencies as if nested in counties, it gives me the > correct number of agencies in the groupings section of the output and the RE > estimates for the var/std are sensible. > > . xtmelogit outcome varlist || _all:R.tncounty || agencynum: , options Let me first clarify the two syntaxes for the nested- and crossed-effects specifications of the random-effects models. The first syntax (1) . xtmelogit outcome varlist || tncounty: || agencynum: , options corresponds to the mixed logistic model with two _nested_ random effects for agencies (defined by the level-variable "agencynum") which are being treated as nested within the random effects for counties (defined by the level-variable "tncounty"). The second syntax (2a) . xtmelogit outcome varlist || _all:R.tncounty || agencynum: , options corresponds to the _crossed_-effect specification in which counties are assumed to be crossed with agencies. The above syntax is equivalent to a more direct specification of the crossed-effect model (2b) . xtmelogit outcome varlist || _all:R.tncounty || _all:R.agencynum:, options Here, the whole dataset is treated as a one big panel as requested by the -_all- specifiers, and indicator variables identifying counties and agencies are created per the -R.tncounty- and -R.agencynum- specifications. Without providing the details which may be found in the sources given below I'll point out that (2a) syntax is merely a more efficient way of fitting the crossed-effects model as specified by (2b). In fact, an even more efficient way of fitting this same model is to use -R.varname- notation with the "agencynum" as the "varname" to create indicator variables for agencies at the first level and use "tncounty" as the second-level variable: (2c) . xtmelogit outcome varlist || _all:R.agencynum || tncounty: , options Since -R.varname- notation adds a column to the random-effects matrix for each category of the variable "varname" it is better to use a variable with smaller number of categories with the -R.varname- notation. In Wendy's example such a variable is "agencynum". For more examples and details of fitting crossed-effects models see example 5 in [XT] xtmelogit, example 6 in [XT] xtmixed, and other sources, for example: http://www.stata.com/bookstore/mlmus.html http://www.stata-journal.com/abstracts/st0095.pdf http://www.stata.com/statalist/archive/2007-06/msg00837.html Let's now investigate the group information reported for each syntax. Consider part of the output presented by Wendy for the nested-effects model (1): -------------------------------------------------------------------------- | No. of Observations per Group Integration Group Variable | Groups Minimum Average Maximum Points ----------------+--------------------------------------------------------- tncounty | 70 ... agencynum | 93 ... -------------------------------------------------------------------------- The number of groups for "tncounty" is 70 (as Wendy expected) and the number of groups for "agencynum" is 93 rather than the expected 20. Since Wendy is fitting the nested-effects model the number of levels for the agencies nested within counties is determined by the number of unique combinations of counties and agencies. Wendy can verify this, for example, as follows. After fitting the -xtmelogit- command, Wendy can type . egen count = group(tncounty agencynum) if e(sample) . qui tabulate count . display as txt "Number of categories = " as res r(r) and should obtain the same number 93 as reported in the above output. Although Wendy does not provide the output from fitting the crossed-effects model (2a), the group information should look something like: -------------------------------------------------------------------------- | No. of Observations per Group Integration Group Variable | Groups Minimum Average Maximum Points ----------------+--------------------------------------------------------- _all | 1 ... agencynum | 20 ... -------------------------------------------------------------------------- In this model, "agencynum" is nested within one big panel (-_all-) so the number of groups is the number of categories of "agencynum", 20. > judging from the missing value in the RE table, I wonder if there is some sort > of problem maximizing/estimating, but I'm not sure how or why. According to the iteration log from the output of -xtmelogit- there is no problem with the maximization of the likelihood; the model converged to an answer. A missing value in the random-effects table indicates a very large upper bound for the estimate of the variance component for counties. One comment on the below syntax: > . xtmelogit vsat black || tncounty: || agencynum: , or variance cov(un) > Note: single-variable random-effects specification; covariance structure set > to identity is that Wendy does not need to specify the -cov(un)- option since the "agencynum"-level equation contains only one random coefficient (random intercept). Since Wendy wants to fit a crossed-effects model, a more efficient syntax is as given by (2c) above and repeated here: . xtmelogit outcome varlist || _all:R.agencynum || tncounty: , options -- Yulia ymarchenko@stata.com * * 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/

- Prev by Date:
**RE: st: -estout- and ebsd** - Next by Date:
**RE: st: Mata and Parameter Constraints** - Previous by thread:
**st: WCSUG program announcement** - Next by thread:
**st: -estout- and ebsd** - Index(es):

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