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 <maartenlbuis@gmail.com> |

To |
statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu |

Subject |
Re: st: predict |

Date |
Fri, 3 Jun 2011 09:42:42 +0200 |

--- On 2 June 2011 18:08, Chiara Mussida wrote: > I simply want the coefficients (of my covariates) which allow me to > get the predicted outcome of each equation of my MNL. > > example: I get a predicted probability (say to move from employment to > unemployment) of 0.4: > what is the contribution (numerical) of each covariate I included in > my equation (suc as sex, individual age, etc.). Is it given by the > exponential of the coef I find in the Stata output? therefore by > summing/subtracting the exp of each coef I get my predicted of 0.4 > (but there is also a standard error) The contribution of each variable to the predicted probability is neither its coefficient nor the exponential of that coefficient. It is a non-linear function you can find in any introductory text on multinomial regression. So you cannot use a set of additions of coefficients to get to the predicted probability. If you want to give a exact representation of the model you will have to look at relative risks or odds(*) (**), this is: relative risk = exp(b0 + b1 x1 + b2 x2 + ...) or, equivalently relative risk = exp(b0) * exp(b1 x1) * exp(b2 x2) * ... Alternatively, you can fit a linear model on top of your multinomial logistic regression, and use those results to summarize the results. This is what you do when you compute marginal effects. As this is the result of a model on top of a model it will not be an exact representation of the original multinomial regression model, so the addition of coefficients will in all likelihood lead to deviations from the actual predicted probabilities. on the plus side, you can now interpret your results in terms of probabilities instead of relative risks. The fact that marginal effects are not exact representation of the model results is not necessarily bad. Marginal effects form a model of your multinomial regression model, and models aren't supposed to be exact, they are only supposed to be useful. Whether or not this model of a model is useful depends on the exact aim of the exercise. If you do this in order to compute some kind of decomposition of effects, than I would stick to the exact representation, if I were presenting results than I would look at who my audience is. There are also cases where the underlying multinomial regression model is so complicated, that the linear approximation implicit in the marginal effects starts to struggle. For example it is not uncommon for correctly computed marginal effects of interaction terms to be significantly positive for some respondents, significantly negative for others, and non-significant for the remaining respondents. In most cases, that is hardly a useful conclusion. Hope this helps, Maarten (*) There are some differences between disciplines in whether the outcomes of a multinomial logistic regression can be called an odds or whether a new term like relative risk has to be invented for it. See, for example: <http://www.stata.com/statalist/archive/2007-02/msg00085.html> (**) Notice that I say here relative risk or odds, I did not say relative risk ratio or odds ratio. It is a common mistake to assume that these things are the same. -------------------------- 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: predict***From:*Chiara Mussida <cmussida@gmail.com>

**References**:**st: predict***From:*Chiara Mussida <cmussida@gmail.com>

**Re: st: predict***From:*Richard Williams <richardwilliams.ndu@gmail.com>

**Re: st: predict***From:*Chiara Mussida <cmussida@gmail.com>

**Re: st: predict***From:*Chiara Mussida <cmussida@gmail.com>

- Prev by Date:
**st: Job Posting (Austin, TX)** - Next by Date:
**st: Drop observations of groups with gaps in their data** - Previous by thread:
**Re: st: predict** - Next by thread:
**Re: st: predict** - Index(es):