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: Fwd: Another question about zero inflated models
From
rachel grant <[email protected]>
To
[email protected]
Subject
Re: st: Fwd: Another question about zero inflated models
Date
Thu, 24 Feb 2011 18:07:59 +0000
Thanks for replying. No, DEGD is my continuous independent variable
which I think nay be causing zeros in my dependent count variable ,
MALES.
I used DEGD as the inflation variable, and it was highly sig with a
negative coefficient. What I am hoping this means is that the higher
the DEGD, the lower probability of zero MALES. That would be
biologically sensible.
regards, Rachel
Rachel Grant
Dept. Life Sciences
Open University
UK
On 24 February 2011 18:02, Joerg Luedicke <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 12:46 PM, rachel grant
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I think I have worked this out. a negative inflation coefficient means
>> the higher the DEGD the fewer zeros, and vice versa. Maybe someone can
>> tell me if I am correct. many thanks!
>
> So your dependent variable is "DEGD" which is a count variable with
> basically a high number of zeros. Is that correct? If you find a
> coefficient from the inflation part of the model to be negative then
> means that per increase in x (the independent variable, however this
> is scaled, let's assume it's continuous) the chance of having a zero
> count decreases since you are predicting count=0 vs count>0.
>
> HTH,
>
> J.
> *
> * 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/
>
--
regards, Rachel
*
* 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/