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 |
Maarten buis <maartenbuis@yahoo.co.uk> |

To |
statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu |

Subject |
Re: st: Re: heteroscedasticity in logit/ probit model |

Date |
Wed, 24 Nov 2010 16:39:18 +0000 (GMT) |

--- On Wed, 24/11/10, rohaida wrote: > Let me clarify my problem. In linear model we use "estat > imtest" and "estat hettest" command to check heteroscedasticity. > If heteroscedasticity exist the OLS is inefficient, then we can > use the GLS (weighted least square) or robust std. error to > correct heteroscedsaticity. > > So, how about the probit/logit model? how can I check > heteroscedsaticity in logit/ probit model? If heteroscedasticity > exist in the probit/ logit model how can I fix it? This is useful > to defend which estimator that give unbiased results. What > actually 'hetprob' function? Heteroskedasticity is a very different problem in models like -probit- and -logit-. Think of it this way: your dependent variable is a probability. A probabiltiy embodies uncertainty, and that uncertainty comes from all variables we have not included in our model. In one sense this makes it very easy to deal with heteroskedasticity: We just define our dependent variable of interest to be the probability given the control variabels in our model. The results of your model give an accurate description of what you have found in your data. However, we often want to give parameters a counterfactual interpretation (e.g. "if the men suddenly became women, then the probabiltiy changes by x percentage points"). Such a counterfactual interpretation is only correct if we can assume that there is no heteroscedasticity. Several solutions have been proposed and I trust none of them: they are just too sensitive. If you really want to do something about it, than I you'll really need to do some reading. Since these models are so sensitive, you really need to know what you are doing. A good entry point for that literature is (Williams 2009). But my position is that that problem is basically unsolvable, so not worth worrying about. Hope that helps, Maarten Williams, R. 2009. Using heterogenous choice models to compare logit and probit coefficients across groups. Sociological Methods & Research 37: 531--559. -------------------------- Maarten L. Buis Institut fuer Soziologie Universitaet Tuebingen Wilhelmstrasse 36 72074 Tuebingen Germany http://www.maartenbuis.nl -------------------------- * * 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: st: Re: heteroscedasticity in logit/ probit model***From:*Richard Williams <richardwilliams.ndu@gmail.com>

**st: Re: heteroscedasticity in logit/ probit model***From:*rohaida <rohaida_basiruddin@yahoo.com>

**References**:**st: Re: heteroscedasticity in logit/ probit model***From:*rohaida <rohaida_basiruddin@yahoo.com>

- Prev by Date:
**st: Wald test of exogeneity in ivtobit** - Next by Date:
**st: endogeneity in mixed process models** - Previous by thread:
**st: Re: heteroscedasticity in logit/ probit model** - Next by thread:
**st: Re: heteroscedasticity in logit/ probit model** - Index(es):