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

From |
"Arne Risa Hole" <arnehole@gmail.com> |

To |
statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu |

Subject |
Re: st: model for fractional data with panel data |

Date |
Wed, 7 Nov 2007 18:40:36 +0000 |

Thanks Austin, I agree that transforming y and running -xtreg- (or -xtivreg2-) is a good alternative to -glm- when the dependent variable does not contain any zeroes or ones. I think that the incidental parameters problem _is_ an issue for the -glm- model though, as this can be run as a binary logit where each observation corresponds to a week and y=1 if the person worked that week and zero otherwise. But that is probably not very relevant from a practical point of view since you can just as well run a linear model with y transformed as you demonstrated... Arne On 07/11/2007, Austin Nichols <austinnichols@gmail.com> wrote: > Arne-- > I'm not sure the concern about incidental parameters applies here. To > my mind, the question is, is there anything to be gained by using > -glm- with indicator variables to capture fixed effects to estimate > instead of transforming y by generating a new variable lny=ln(y) or > logity=logit(y) or invlogity=invlogit(y) and I'm not sure there is, in > this case. The poster specified that y measured proportions strictly > between 0 and 1, i.e. on the open interval. That is the crucial > point--there are no obs with y=0 or y=1. In this case, you may be > better off with -xtreg- (or -xtivreg2- with more SE adjustments) than > -glm- if only because estimation is so much faster! But you will get > numerically different answers, of course... > since y=f(Xb+e) is not the same as y=f(Xb)+e > > webuse psidextract, clear > tsset id t > gen w=wks/53 > g ilw=invlogit(w) > qui su ilw > replace ilw=ilw/r(sd) > qui reg ilw lw uni south smsa, cluster(id) > est sto reg > qui glm w lw uni south smsa, link(logit) fam(gauss) cl(id) > est sto glm > qui xtreg ilw lw uni south smsa, cluster(id) fe > est sto xtreg > qui xi: glm w lw uni sou sms i.id, link(logit) fam(gauss) cl(id) > est sto xtglm > esttab *, keep(lwage union south smsa) mti > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > (1) (2) (3) (4) > reg glm xtreg xtglm > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > main > lwage 0.139* 0.127* 0.0598 0.162 > (2.41) (2.03) (0.83) (1.55) > > union -0.309*** -0.286*** 0.158 0.171 > (-6.09) (-6.22) (1.33) (1.38) > > south 0.0361 0.0404 -0.122 -0.275 > (0.67) (0.76) (-0.66) (-1.16) > > smsa 0.0242 0.0176 0.0304 0.0468 > (0.45) (0.35) (0.35) (0.38) > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > N 4165 4165 4165 4165 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > t statistics in parentheses > * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001 > > > Having accepted you might transform y, the question then is which > transformation is appropriate, and for that you need some theory. > Neglecting theory, you might explore whether regressions using > lny=ln(y) or logity=logit(y) or invlogity=invlogit(y) as the depvar > produce predictions that make more sense and residuals that look less > correlated with your transformed depvar. > > tw function y=50*invlogit(x)-31||function y=logit(x)||function y=ln(x) > > > On 11/7/07, Arne Risa Hole <arnehole@gmail.com> wrote: > > There was an extremely useful discussion on the list recently about > > this issue in the context of fixed effects binary logit models. In > > short, adding the fixed effects 'by hand' results in biased estimates > > unless the number of time periods is large. See the thread starting > > with: > > > > http://www.stata.com/statalist/archive/2007-10/msg00935.html > > > > Arne > > > * > * 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/

**References**:**st: model for fractional data with panel data***From:*Ilaria Tucci <ilale78@yahoo.it>

**Re: st: model for fractional data with panel data***From:*Daniel Simon <dhs29@cornell.edu>

**Re: st: model for fractional data with panel data***From:*"Arne Risa Hole" <arnehole@gmail.com>

**Re: st: model for fractional data with panel data***From:*"Austin Nichols" <austinnichols@gmail.com>

- Prev by Date:
**Re: st: model for fractional data with panel data** - Next by Date:
**st: RE: Estimates save and lincom - Stata10** - Previous by thread:
**Re: st: model for fractional data with panel data** - Next by thread:
**st: fracpoly and GAM** - Index(es):

© Copyright 1996–2017 StataCorp LLC | Terms of use | Privacy | Contact us | What's new | Site index |