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: Testing dependence in a 2x2 table for clustered observations

From   "Joseph Coveney" <>
To   <>
Subject   Re: st: Testing dependence in a 2x2 table for clustered observations
Date   Thu, 26 Aug 2010 14:19:06 +0900

Joseph McDonnell wrote:

I'm not sure I agrees with Steve here. Maybe I don't understand how he
would stratify, but I can't see that stratification would solve the
lack of independence. Personally, I'd just use the multilevel
approach. Yes, walnut meets sledgehammer...


You can see how you'd stratify in the example do-file below.  The illustration
uses Adriaan's variable names and 20 clinics.

Stratification is pretty conventional in this circumstance.  The do-file also 
shows the multilevel approach.  You can compare the two to see whether there's a
difference in the message.

Joseph Coveney

clear *
set more off
set seed `=date("2010-08-26", "YMD")'
set obs 20
generate byte clinic = _n
forvalues treatment = 0/1 {
    generate byte count0`treatment' = ceil(50 * runiform())
    generate byte count1`treatment' = 50 - count0`treatment'
reshape long count0 count1, i(clinic) j(treatment)
reshape long count, i(clinic treatment) j(recovered)
cs recovered treatment [fweight = count], by(clinic) or
mhodds recovered treatment [fweight = count], by(clinic)
expand count
drop if count == 0
xtlogit recovered treatment, i(clinic) fe or nolog
xtlogit recovered treatment, i(clinic) re or nolog

*   For searches and help try:

© Copyright 1996–2015 StataCorp LP   |   Terms of use   |   Privacy   |   Contact us   |   Site index