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, **statalist.org** is already up and running.

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

From |
"Ploutz-Snyder, Robert (JSC-SK)[USRA]" <robert.ploutz-snyder-1@nasa.gov> |

To |
"statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu" <statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu> |

Subject |
st: xtmixed versus spss mixed; random intercept only model |

Date |
Thu, 23 Sep 2010 12:49:13 -0500 |

I'm trying to understand why Stata and SPSS provide slightly (or not so much) different results when analyzing the same data with the same (I believe) model. I'm trying to tie out the two software results, beginning with a very SIMPLE model, then working up to what I'd really like to do. Since I've already ran into differences on a very simple model, I thought to ping the list to see if I'm going down the wrong path?? Machine: 64 bit Windows XP 2003 (service pack 2) Stata: 11.1, completely up to date SPSS: 19 (latest version, and the first version with the IBM logo) Model: very simple xtmixed model with continuous outcome (y). All subjects participate in each of two different treatments (trmt), and y is recorded at several different time points during treatment--but for now let's assume time is continuous/linear (i.e. treat time effect as linear on y). For starters, let us also consider only the random intercept model: xtmixed y c.time##i.trmt||subj:, cov(id) Performing EM optimization: Performing gradient-based optimization: Iteration 0: log restricted-likelihood = 267.6765 Iteration 1: log restricted-likelihood = 267.6765 Computing standard errors: Mixed-effects REML regression Number of obs = 242 Group variable: subject Number of groups = 11 Obs per group: min = 22 avg = 22.0 max = 22 Wald chi2(3) = 315.17 Log restricted-likelihood = 267.6765 Prob > chi2 = 0.0000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ y | Coef. Std. Err. z P>|z| [95% Conf. Interval] -------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- time | -.000838 .000067 -12.50 0.000 -.0009694 -.0007066 1.trmt | -.0700826 .0168249 -4.17 0.000 -.1030587 -.0371065 | trmt#c.time | 1 | .0000997 .0000948 1.05 0.293 -.0000861 .0002855 | _cons | 1.344298 .0156008 86.17 0.000 1.313721 1.374874 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Random-effects Parameters | Estimate Std. Err. [95% Conf. Interval] -----------------------------+------------------------------------------------ subject: Identity | sd(_cons) | .0334711 .0089756 .0197884 .0566147 -----------------------------+------------------------------------------------ sd(Residual) | .0699512 .0032758 .0638166 .0766754 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ LR test vs. linear regression: chibar2(01) = 27.71 Prob >= chibar2 = 0.0000 Given only a random intercept, the above Stata results do not change when I switch the cov option. IN SPSS, with what I believe to be the same model, my results are (lots of defaults left in the command syntax fyi, but not really necessary to run the model): MIXED y BY trmt WITH time /FIXED=trmt time trmt*time | SSTYPE(3) /METHOD=REML /PRINT=CPS G SOLUTION TESTCOV /RANDOM=INTERCEPT | SUBJECT(subject) COVTYPE(id). Above SPSS code shows that I'm treating trmt as a "Factor" and time as a "Covariate," which is the SPSS equivalent of Stata's use if i.trmt and c.time. Note that I am also assuming an identity covariance structure in the random statement, as I did with Stata. Both models use REML... here are parts of the SPSS results, minus the pretty formatting and some stuff that we cannot directly compare to above Stata: -2 Restricted Log Likelihood -535.353 Estimates of Fixed Effects(b) 95% Confidence Interval Parameter Estimate Std. Error df t Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound Intercept 1.274215 .015601 38.104 81.676 .000 1.242636 1.305794 [trmt=0] .070083 .016825 228.000 4.165 .000 .036931 .103235 [trmt=1] 0a 0 . . . . . time -.000738 .000067 228.000 -11.014 .000 -.000870 -.000606 [trmt=0] * time -.000100 .000095 228.000 -1.052 .294 -.000287 .000087 [trmt=1] * time 0a 0 . . . . . a. This parameter is set to zero because it is redundant. b. Dependent Variable: y. Estimates of Covariance Parameters(a) 95% Confidence Interval Parameter Estimate Std. Error Wald Z Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound Residual .004893 .000458 10.677 .000 .004073 .005879 Intercept [subject = Variance .001120 .000601 1.865 .062 .000392 .003205 subject] a. Dependent Variable: y. In comparing Stata to SPSS respective differences include: Estimates for trmt effects are the same: -.0700826 versus .070083 (Stata, SPSS) (they differ only by the sign--clearly due to how each treats 1/0 indicators...) The estimates for the Y-intercept: 1.344298 versus 1.274215 The estimate for the time effect: -.000838 versus -.000738 The treatment by time interaction coeff: .0000997 versus -.000100 If we are only considering tests of significance, obviously both packages tell the same story. But I'm curious why we get these differences, particularly for the time effect, where the first non-zero digits differ, and the SE's of those estimates are similarly very small numbers. Y-intercept differences may be non-trivial?? Any thoughts/ideas? Have I miss-specified the model with either SPSS or Stata?? Rob * * 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/

- Prev by Date:
**st: Meta-analysis questions** - Next by Date:
**Re: st: RE: analysis of mixture experiments** - Previous by thread:
**st: Meta-analysis questions** - Next by thread:
**Re: st: xtmixed versus spss mixed; random intercept only model** - Index(es):