Notice: On April 23, 2014, Statalist moved from an email list to a forum, based at statalist.org.

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

From |
John Antonakis <john.antonakis@unil.ch> |

To |
statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu |

Subject |
Re: Wald test: alternatives and small sample sizes |

Date |
Thu, 24 Jun 2010 09:33:46 +0200 |

Hi Veroniek:

Regress y x z q + controls if group = 1 Est store one Regress y x z q + controls if group = 0 Est store two Suest one two, Cluster(Nr_Co) HTH, J. ____________________________________________________

Department of Organizational Behavior University of Lausanne Internef #618 CH-1015 Lausanne-Dorigny Switzerland Tel ++41 (0)21 692-3438 Fax ++41 (0)21 692-3305 Faculty page: http://www.hec.unil.ch/people/jantonakis Personal page: http://www.hec.unil.ch/jantonakis ____________________________________________________ On 24.06.2010 08:38, Collewaert V (MCFE) wrote:

Dear Statalist, I am trying to estimate two models (on two subsamples) with SuEst and cluster option as both samples are related (they belong to the same ventures). Specifically: Regress Y X Y Z + controls if group = 1 Est store one Regress Y X Y Z + controls if group = 0 Est store two Suest one two, Cluster(Nr_Co) However (!) the control variables are different for each group (for instance I control for experience in group 1, but not in group 0, and control for tenure in group 0, but not in group 1), so I do not have the same model for both groups. X, Y and Z refer to three main constructs of interest to my study and are included in both models. One of my hypotheses is that construct X should have a stronger (and positive) effect on group 1's outcome than on group 0's outcome. I tried running a Wald test: Test [one_mean = two_mean] X However, results seem strange to me: X is highly significant in model (group) 1, but absolutely not significant in model (group) 2 and still the Wald test proclaims that both coefficients are equal (chi2( 1) = 1.09, Prob > chi2 = 0.2966). Could the problem be my small sample sizes? (respectively 72 and 65) And if so, what alternatives could I try? Or should I use another test than the Wald test to test this kind of hypothesis? With kind regards, Veroniek * * 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/

**Follow-Ups**:**RE: Wald test: alternatives and small sample sizes***From:*"Collewaert V (MCFE)" <v.collewaert@maastrichtuniversity.nl>

**References**:**Wald test: alternatives and small sample sizes***From:*"Collewaert V (MCFE)" <v.collewaert@maastrichtuniversity.nl>

- Prev by Date:
**st: Large data set that won't open** - Next by Date:
**st: RE: Large data set that won't open** - Previous by thread:
**Wald test: alternatives and small sample sizes** - Next by thread:
**RE: Wald test: alternatives and small sample sizes** - Index(es):