[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: st: Anova
Re: st: Anova
Mon, 1 Dec 2008 10:42:06 +0000 (GMT)
Thanks for this, the gfields is indeed very useful! I am now using it and it gives me pretty nice results. However I am surprised that the contribution of one of my explanatory variables is negative (although small). Any idea why this can be the case?
Many thanks, Alice.
--- On Fri, 28/11/08, John Antonakis <John.Antonakis@unil.ch> wrote:
> From: John Antonakis <John.Antonakis@unil.ch>
> Subject: Re: st: Anova
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Date: Friday, 28 November, 2008, 4:32 PM
> Simply estimate:
> xi: reg y x1 x2 x3 x4 x4 x6 i.dumm, beta.
> If your variables are either binary or continuous variables
> then you can examine the beta coefficient (i.e.,
> standardized) for relative impact.
> For other ways to look at coefficients download
> Also "gfields" is nice for breaking down
> If you have categorical data with more than two categories
> use the "test" command to test whether the dummies
> of that variable dummies are jointly different from zero:
> e.g., test I_dumm1 I_dumm2
> I guess you could convert that F or chi-square that it
> reports to an effect size.
> John Antonakis
> University of Lausanne
> * For searches and help try:
> * http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search
> * http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
> * http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/
* For searches and help try: