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

From |
"Leda Inga" <ledainga@gmail.com> |

To |
statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu |

Subject |
Re: st: svy, subpop ( ) with version 10 |

Date |
Fri, 6 Jun 2008 21:46:02 -0500 |

Unfortunately I don't have cluster specific variables. I'm worried that you say fixed-effects logit will not solve the problem. I've read the reference manual and it says that clogit ( which is the same as fe logit) can be used for matched-case controles studies. In my data every individual in a certain cluster for which the dependet variable is zero would be a control for the rest (for which the dependent is one). It also says that it doesn't matter if each cluster has a different number of observations. Finally, in the book of Wooldridge of panel data (p 496) it says that an unobserved effect framework can be used for cluster samples. The author cites the work of Geronimus and Korenman (1992) where they "use sister pairs to determine the effects of teenage motherhood on subsequente economic outcomes". They use a fixed-effects approach when the outcome is binary. In my model the most important omitted variables correlated with the regressors are geographical access and cultural barriers. Please, I would like to be confirmed if my approach is really incorrect. 2008/6/6 Steven Samuels <sjhsamuels@earthlink.net>: > If you want a 3-level or higher model with estimated variances at each > level, then your only recourse is -gllamm-. You would have to compute your > own weighted predictions. > > In any case, -xtlogit- will not solve your problem; its "fixed-effects" > option makes sense only for longitudinal data. > > -svylogit- will give you the standard goodness of fit statistics; will > permit you to model multiple stages of sampling, but will not provide > estimators of variance for each level. You can include cluster-specific > covariates and test the interaction of cluster-covariates and individual > covariates. > > -Steven > On Jun 6, 2008, at 9:29 PM, Leda Inga wrote: > >> I'm still trying to find if there's a good measure of fit for a >> fixed-effect logit model. As I answered in the last email, I'm really >> interesed in getting one. >> >> 2008/6/6 Steven Samuels <sjhsamuels@earthlink.net>: >>> >>> The numbers of PSU and strata (before subsetting) are different. >>> Therefore >>> either the -svyset- commands or the data sets differ. By the way, how >>> did >>> you resolve your cluster problem? >>> >>> Steven >>> On Jun 6, 2008, at 8:04 PM, Leda Inga wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I'm running a logit using svy and found a difference in the >>>> coefficients and pvalues reported by version 9 and 10 of Stata. I >>>> thought that it could be because of the observations that each one >>>> takes into account. As you can see below the version 10 considers 4178 >>>> observations but there are actually 8471 and the results are the same >>>> as using the "if" after svy. Can anybody explain this? >>>> >>>> The command I used for both versions was: >>>> >>>> svy, subpop(urbano): logit PS n_hijos educ seguro V157 NSE rural >>>> _ISREGION_3 _ISREGION_5 CPci CPci2 labor_prol >>>> >>>> VERSION 10: >>>> >>>> Survey: Logistic regression >>>> >>>> Number of strata = 24 Number of obs = >>>> 4178 >>>> Number of PSUs = 451 Population size = >>>> 2920.9792 >>>> >>>> Subpop. no. of obs = 4178 >>>> Subpop. size >>>> = 2920.9792 >>>> Design df >>>> = 427 >>>> F( 10, >>>> 418) = 30.43 >>>> Prob > F >>>> = 0.0000 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> | Linearized >>>> PS | Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. >>>> Interval] >>>> >>>> >>>> -------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> n_hijos | -.0627022 .0233953 -2.68 0.008 -.1086865 >>>> -.0167179 >>>> educ | .0995025 .0176722 5.63 0.000 .0647671 >>>> .1342379 >>>> seguro | .2691795 .1430446 1.88 0.061 -.0119797 >>>> .5503387 >>>> V157 | .2184025 .0961237 2.27 0.024 .0294679 >>>> .4073371 >>>> NSE | .5893834 .0859681 6.86 0.000 .4204101 >>>> .7583568 >>>> _ISREGION_3 | -.8503491 .2073588 -4.10 0.000 -1.25792 >>>> -.4427781 >>>> _ISREGION_5 | -.7629466 .2529318 -3.02 0.003 -1.260093 >>>> -.2658003 >>>> CPci | .298412 .0547975 5.45 0.000 .1907057 >>>> .4061184 >>>> CPci2 | -.0109094 .0043379 -2.51 0.012 -.0194356 >>>> -.0023832 >>>> labor_prol | .415821 .1035528 4.02 0.000 .2122843 >>>> .6193578 >>>> _cons | -2.961981 .3026012 -9.79 0.000 -3.556754 >>>> -2.367207 >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> Note: 25 strata omitted because they contain no subpopulation members. >>>> >>>> >>>> VERSION 9: >>>> >>>> Survey: Logistic regression >>>> >>>> Number of strata = 49 Number of obs = >>>> 8471 >>>> Number of PSUs = 1118 Population size = >>>> 6948.092 >>>> Subpop. no. >>>> of obs = 4212 >>>> Subpop. size >>>> = 2945.3116 >>>> Design df >>>> = 1069 >>>> F( 10, >>>> 1060) = 31.19 >>>> Prob > F >>>> = 0.0000 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> | Linearized >>>> PS | Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. >>>> Interval] >>>> >>>> >>>> -------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> n_hijos | -.0624413 .023198 -2.69 0.007 -.10796 >>>> -.0169225 >>>> educ | .100353 .0178213 5.63 0.000 .0653842 >>>> .1353218 >>>> seguro | .2789113 .1415214 1.97 0.049 .0012202 >>>> .5566025 >>>> V157 | .2192173 .0962575 2.28 0.023 .0303421 >>>> .4080924 >>>> NSE | .5896208 .0851999 6.92 0.000 .4224427 >>>> .7567989 >>>> _ISREGION_3 | -.8230625 .2058183 -4.00 0.000 -1.226916 >>>> -.4192088 >>>> _ISREGION_5 | -.7412179 .2491071 -2.98 0.003 -1.230012 >>>> -.2524236 >>>> CPci | .2921813 .04976 5.87 0.000 .194543 >>>> .3898195 >>>> CPci2 | -.0103967 .0037064 -2.81 0.005 -.0176694 >>>> -.003124 >>>> labor_prol | .4267068 .1025795 4.16 0.000 .2254268 >>>> .6279867 >>>> _cons | -2.97932 .293572 -10.15 0.000 -3.555362 >>>> -2.403277 >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks. >>>> * >>>> * 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/ >>> >> * >> * 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/ > * * 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/

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: st: svy, subpop ( ) with version 10***From:*Steven Samuels <sjhsamuels@earthlink.net>

**References**:**st: svy, subpop ( ) with version 10***From:*"Leda Inga" <ledainga@gmail.com>

**Re: st: svy, subpop ( ) with version 10***From:*Steven Samuels <sjhsamuels@earthlink.net>

**Re: st: svy, subpop ( ) with version 10***From:*"Leda Inga" <ledainga@gmail.com>

**Re: st: svy, subpop ( ) with version 10***From:*Steven Samuels <sjhsamuels@earthlink.net>

- Prev by Date:
**Re: st: svy, subpop ( ) with version 10** - Next by Date:
**st: System of Seemingly Unrelated Poisson Regressions (with Constraints)** - Previous by thread:
**Re: st: svy, subpop ( ) with version 10** - Next by thread:
**Re: st: svy, subpop ( ) with version 10** - Index(es):

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