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" <statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu> |

Subject |
Re: st: logit and mfx for randomized experiments |

Date |
Mon, 2 May 2011 17:59:50 +0100 (BST) |

--- Daniel Schwartz wrote: > 1. Is it more common to report this type of results just using odds-ratio? > As reporting the results using your first example of your paper (page 2, > stata tip 87). > > xi: logit y i.x1*x2 baseline, nocons or That is really (sub-(sub-))discipline specific. I work in a sub-discipline of Sociology (social stratification and social mobility research) where the odds ratios are the norm. This makes sense given the typical research question in this field. Typically they want to look at the association between family background and educational and/or occupational attainment of the offspring while controlling for structural changes like more people continuing after high school or more people entering service occupations in more recent cohorts. These structural changes are captured by changes in the baseline odds, and they thus drop out of the odds ratios. Marginal effects are contaminated by these structural changes and are thus not appropriate for answering this question(*). On the other hand, my impression of many branches of economics is that it tends to regard odds ratios and ratios of odds ratios as too hard to understand, and thus tend to focus more on the marginal effects. If your audience finds it hard to understand your statistics than you need to take that seriously, even though I do not think that this reputation is justified. One way of taking these concerns seriously without using marginal effects is to just start with explaining the baseline odds, move to the odds ratios, and than to ratios of odds ratios. This does not take much extra space and it gradually and in a natural way eases the audience into what your results mean. > 2. At the end of your email, you indicate to use inteff, that in my case it > would be: > > xi: inteff y i.x1*x2 > (I guess it's fine that doesn’t allow to add 'baseline' in this case) Yes > Should I use this s.e. and z-value for the interaction to report results, > keeping the odds from the previous point? No, you must also use the different interaction effects produced by -inteff-. Typically this means that you will have many different interaction effects, some significantly positive, some non-significant, and others significantly negative, which will make it hard to draw meaningful conclusions. But that is the price you must pay for using an effect size that is not "natural" for that model. It is easiest to see what is natural to a model by looking at what it does to a continuous variable: If you add a continuous variable (x) to a linear regression model it says that a unit change in x always leads to b units y increase in the expected value of y, regardless of how much y you had to begin with. So in a linear regression the natural way of looking at effects is that we compare groups by computing the differences in expected value of y. In logistic regression the effect of a continuous variable says that a unit change in x always leads to a change in odds of success by a factor of exp(b), regardless of how high the odds was to begin with. So in logistic regression the natural way of looking at effects is that we compare groups by computing the ratio of odds. We can use "unnatural effect sizes" but than we must be willing to live with the resulting complications. > 3. Related to the previous points, in your paper you found that the interaction > wasn't significant (p = .16), but when you compute the 'margins', you find > significant results. I understand that your calculating different things here. In my case the rather odd (pun intended) marginal effects in terms of odds differences rather than the more conventional risk differences is actually insignificant, as you can see here: sysuse nlsw88, clear gen byte high_occ = occupation < 3 if occupation < . gen byte black = race == 2 if race < . drop if race == 3 gen byte baseline = 1 logit high_occ black##collgrad baseline, or nocons margins , over(black collgrad) expression(exp(xb())) post lincom (0.black#1.collgrad - 0.black#0.collgrad) - /// (1.black#1.collgrad - 1.black#0.collgrad) The things I computed in my article where the effects of collgrad for blacks and whites separately. These are, unsurprisingly, significant. To turn these into an interaction effect you need to compute the difference (in this case not a ratio because now we are talking marginal effects) between these effects as I have done above. -- Maarten (*) Within my discipline I have taken the position that we should not always control for these structural changes. I did not propose to do away with the odds ratio, but rather to explicitly study the link between odds ratios and marginal effects as a way to study how structural changes and "real" changes (the odds ratios) together influence the outcome, e.g.: <http://www.maartenbuis.nl/dissertation/chap_6.pdf> -------------------------- 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/

**References**:**Re: st: logit and mfx for randomized experiments***From:*Maarten buis <maartenbuis@yahoo.co.uk>

- Prev by Date:
**Re: st: Re: insheet multi threading** - Next by Date:
**st: specifying marker labels in twoway scatter** - Previous by thread:
**Re: st: logit and mfx for randomized experiments** - Next by thread:
**st: how to find joint probabilities** - Index(es):