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 on April 23, and its replacement, is already up and running.

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

RE: st: Understanding Factor variables - is order significant ?

From   "Jesper Lindhardsen" <>
To   <>
Subject   RE: st: Understanding Factor variables - is order significant ?
Date   Thu, 27 May 2010 09:33:43 +0200

I'm very happy with for the first (out of uncountable occasions) Stata
is wrong !!!!
Do you get a "find a bug" T-shirt ;-)

I'm looking forward to a fix as I find the factor variable feature
extremely useful.

Jesper Lindhardsen
MD, Ph.d. student
Department of Cardiovascular Research
Copenhagen University Hospital, Gentofte

-----Original Message-----
[] On Behalf Of Richard
Sent: 27. maj 2010 00:45
Subject: Re: st: Understanding Factor variables - is order significant ?

You wonder how such an obvious problem could be missed.  :) Actually, 
I think this should be a strong contender for most esoteric bug of 
the year award! Thanks for fixing it.

At 03:17 PM 5/26/2010, Roberto G. Gutierrez, StataCorp wrote:
>Jesper (and those others who have contributed on this thread) have
>a bug in how factor-variable interactions are being parsed in Stata.
>specific conditions that trigger this are as follows:
>    1. You specify a simple interaction (a single # sign) between two
or more
>       factor variables.
>    2. The first variable in the interaction has the value zero as one
>       its categories.
>    3. The first specification in the interaction has a base level that
>       not the default of zero (the lowest level for the first
>    4. At least one of the remaining variables in the interaction has a
>       equal to the lowest-valued category for that variable, 
> whether expicitly
>       specified or taken as the default.
>    5. Almost all estimation commands are affected by this bug, with
>       being one notable exception.
>When the above conditions occur, Stata is attempting to omit an extra
cell in
>the interaction.  Sometimes, the cell will be omitted altogether, other
>Stata will produce a coefficient for that cell, but missing standard
>and confidence intervals.  Either way, the model fit is thrown off
because the
>cell's coefficient is not properly estimated.
>We will fix this in the next executable update, to be made available
>--Bobby                                         --Jeff
>*   For searches and help try:

Richard Williams, Notre Dame Dept of Sociology
OFFICE: (574)631-6668, (574)631-6463
HOME:   (574)289-5227
EMAIL:  Richard.A.Williams.5@ND.Edu

*   For searches and help try:

*   For searches and help try:

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