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]
Re: st: marginal effects after clogit
From
Steve Samuels <[email protected]>
To
[email protected]
Subject
Re: st: marginal effects after clogit
Date
Mon, 30 Aug 2010 12:54:22 -0400
Olivia Bacha-
I don't understand your question. The following code generates no
intercepts (_cons). I assume that "AVE" in your post is a typo for
"AME", or "average marginal effect".
**********************
webuse birthwt2, clear
clogit low lwt smoke ptd ht ui i.race, group(pairid)
margins, dydx(*) predict(xb)
***************************
Perhaps by "intercepts" you meant the estimated margins. In this
example, the estimated are identical to the original -clogit-
coefficients and so have the same interpretation. If I had specified
"predict(pu0)", the estimated margins would be first derivatives of
probabilities in which the intercepts in the logistic equation are
set to zero. Such AME's, like the "pu0" predictions themselves, can
be very misleading if the true intercepts are far away from zero.
If this does not answer your question, please clarify and include the
code and output which puzzle you.
Steve
Steven J. Samuels
[email protected]
18 Cantine's Island
Saugerties NY 12477
USA
Voice: 845-246-0774
Fax: 206-202-4783
Olivia Bacha <[email protected]> wrote:
> How can I interpret AVE for intercepts generated by margins, dydx(*)
> predict(xb) after clogit?
*
* 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/