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

Re: st: About the consequence of doing a two step estimationmanually

From   David Greenberg <>
Subject   Re: st: About the consequence of doing a two step estimationmanually
Date   Mon, 09 Jun 2008 19:26:37 -0400

If you do the estimation m,anually by substituting the predicted value of a predictor into an equation for the second-stage estimation, the software will treat that predicted value as a true observed value, ignoring the fact that there is some uncertainty surrounding the prediction in the first stage. Consequently the second-stage estimation is going to produce estimates with standard errors that are too small. A question that one might ask is why you want to do this manually. David Greenberg, Sociology Department, New York University

----- Original Message -----
From: Leda Inga <>
Date: Monday, June 9, 2008 7:19 pm
Subject: st: About the consequence of doing a two step estimation manually

> Dear statalisters:
> I've tried to found a way to do a correct two step estimation but
> haven't found an answer. I have an explanatory variable correlated
> with the error term and that variable enters the model also with a
> square term. I know that if the estimation is done manually the betas
> are still consistent and that the problem is the standard errors are
> not correctly calculated. What I would like to know is if the standard
> errors are subestimated or overestimaded? The pvalue of one of the
> regressors of my model is very high and would like to know if the true
> pvalue is higher or lower.
> Thanks in advance.
> *
> *   For searches and help try:
> *
> *
> *
*   For searches and help try:

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