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: All coefficients significant


From   "Michael I. Lichter" <mlichter@buffalo.edu>
To   statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu
Subject   Re: st: All coefficients significant
Date   Wed, 23 Jun 2010 13:59:13 -0400

Rosie,

If you have a very large sample size, you may get results that are statistically significant despite being of little practical significance. If you are erroneously using very large f-weights, you could get the same result. For a better answer than that, you will have to supply more information. Show us your regression results and provide a little background about the variables and why you think it substantively unlikely that all of the coefficients would be significant.

Michael

Rosie Chen wrote:
Does anyone know what could have gone wrong with the following situation? A regression analysis produced the coefficients that are statistically significant at .001 level. This is unusual to me. What could have caused such a problem? Many thanks for any advice.
Rosie



*
*   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/

--
Michael I. Lichter, Ph.D. <mlichter@buffalo.edu>
Research Assistant Professor & NRSA Fellow
UB Department of Family Medicine / Primary Care Research Institute
UB Clinical Center, 462 Grider Street, Buffalo, NY 14215
Office: CC 126 / Phone: 716-898-4751 / FAX: 716-898-3536

*
*   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