Statalist


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: st: Anova


From   aapdm <aapdm_999@yahoo.co.uk>
To   statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu
Subject   Re: st: Anova
Date   Mon, 1 Dec 2008 10:42:06 +0000 (GMT)

Dear John,

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: statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu
> 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
> "listcoef".
> 
> Also "gfields" is nice for breaking down
> variance.
> 
> 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.
> 
> HTH,
> John Antonakis
> University of Lausanne
> Switzerland
> *
> *   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:
*   http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search
*   http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
*   http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/



© Copyright 1996–2014 StataCorp LP   |   Terms of use   |   Privacy   |   Contact us   |   What's new   |   Site index