Bookmark and Share

Notice: On March 31, it was announced that Statalist is moving from an email list to a forum. The old list will shut down at the end of May, and its replacement, statalist.org is already up and running.


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

Re: st: xtmelogit vs hlm


From   Stas Kolenikov <skolenik@gmail.com>
To   statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu
Subject   Re: st: xtmelogit vs hlm
Date   Tue, 16 Mar 2010 14:02:06 -0500

On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 6:32 AM, Neal Beck <nealinmadrid@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> As OP, turns out that on RTFMing I can easily get HLM and xtmelogit to within 10%, quite good enough for govt work given the differing numerical methods. Why Stata thinks that I might (as a default) want to estimate a mixed model with the random coefficient centered on 0 (that is, no fixed component entered automatically) is well beyond me. But not reading the FM is not a good excuse for assuming that all Stata syntax looks like R syntax (mutatis mutandis).

Can you propose any good default value for a random effect other than
zero??? You can suggest the developers to issue an error message, which is
probably quite proper. A random effect without a fixed effect is somewhat
weird, but you as a user might have a different idea. If R defaults to
populating the fixed effects that way, then you'd really have to work around
that to force them to be centered at zero.

I'd be curious to learn more about where the mismatch was.
--
Stas Kolenikov, also found at http://stas.kolenikov.name
Small print: I use this email account for mailing lists only.

*
*   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   |   Site index