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: Additional covariate kills effect in -reg-, but not in -cnreg-; Which should I trust?

From   Maarten buis <>
Subject   Re: st: Additional covariate kills effect in -reg-, but not in -cnreg-; Which should I trust?
Date   Wed, 1 Dec 2010 13:42:32 +0000 (GMT)

--- On Wed, 1/12/10, Stata Chris wrote:
> I'm regressing unemployment durations on some hypothesized
> determinants thereof.
> To get more statistical power, I want to start with
> least-squares regression rather than a Cox model, but I
> thought that I should at least deal with the fact that many
> durations are right-censored in that the spell has not yet
> ended by the time my panel ends.
> So I decided to use -cnreg-. I find that whereas when I use
> -reg- adding year fixed effects "kills" my main effect of
> interest, the same is not true when I use instead use -cnreg-.
> Since I do not fully understand what -cnreg- does differently
> from -reg-, I wonder which of the two results I should trust
> more?

If you decide to use -cnreg- than you should have used -streg-
instead. The ideas behind these two commands are somewhat 
similar, but -streg- is explicitly made for your type of data, 
so much more appropriate. If you have a large proportion of 
censored cases then -regress- is simply not an option.

Hope this helps,

Maarten L. Buis
Institut fuer Soziologie
Universitaet Tuebingen
Wilhelmstrasse 36
72074 Tuebingen


*   For searches and help try:

© Copyright 1996–2016 StataCorp LP   |   Terms of use   |   Privacy   |   Contact us   |   Site index