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

From |
"Martin Weiss" <martin.weiss1@gmx.de> |

To |
<statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu> |

Subject |
st: AW: RE: AW: MLOGIT versus a set of LOGIT models |

Date |
Tue, 18 Aug 2009 19:40:48 +0200 |

<> "It seems to me that Jon's question remains essentially untouched by Martin's comment." Fully agreed! Next time I will reverse my _two_ points to make them more palatable.. HTH Martin -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu [mailto:owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu] Im Auftrag von Nick Cox Gesendet: Dienstag, 18. August 2009 18:59 An: statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu Betreff: st: RE: AW: MLOGIT versus a set of LOGIT models Jon's use of -xi:- here is really a side issue. While it's quite true that factor variables in Stata 11 offer more power and flexibility than did -xi:- it is equally true that -xi:- remains available and continues to produce good results. It seems to me that Jon's question remains essentially untouched by Martin's comment. Nick n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk Martin Weiss In the absence of a -version- statement, your code is problematic as it still uses -xi- which has been superseded in Stata 11. Note the FAQ on this point. I think you will get more/better answers if you frame your question in terms of the example in the help file... Jon Heron I have always believed that the regression estimates from a multinomial logistic regression model (MLOGIT) could be replicated through a set of simple logit models with the appropriately derived binary outcomes. Whilst attempting to demonstrate this fact for some teaching material on polytomous IRT that i am writing, I moved from my usual categorical predictors to a continuous covariate + discovered that the above equivalence did not hold. To ensure that this was not a fluke, I have since demonstrated that with the two simple models below, each with the same 4-level outcome and 4-level predictor, the former can be replicated with logits, but not the latter. xi: mlogit ghq1 i.ghq3, baseoutcome(0) mlogit ghq1 ghq3, baseoutcome(0) * * 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/

**References**:**st: MLOGIT versus a set of LOGIT models***From:*"Jon Heron" <Jon.Heron@bristol.ac.uk>

**st: AW: MLOGIT versus a set of LOGIT models***From:*"Martin Weiss" <martin.weiss1@gmx.de>

**st: RE: AW: MLOGIT versus a set of LOGIT models***From:*"Nick Cox" <n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk>

- Prev by Date:
**st: MLOGIT versus a set of LOGIT models [re-posting]** - Next by Date:
**st:how to match created matrix to the original data set** - Previous by thread:
**st: RE: AW: MLOGIT versus a set of LOGIT models** - Next by thread:
**st: weighted estimates for a multiply imputed variable?** - Index(es):

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