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: re: marginal vs discrete effects in logistic regression |

Date |
Thu, 4 Aug 2011 14:18:43 +0200 |

On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 7:25 AM, Kouji Asakura wrote: > 1) In trying to compute for the marginal effects, i came across two commands in stata that compute for these : prchange and mfx. From what I have read so far, mfx computes for the change in probability for every increase in your independent variable, while holding the other variables constant at their mean, while for the marginal effects computed by the prchange command, it is described as "MargEfct: the partial derivative of the predicted probability/rate with respect to a given independent variable". My question however is... are these marginal effects applicable if all of your predictor variables are discrete/ at most ordinal scale? I'm hesitant to interpret the marginal effects as "change in probability... while holding other variables constant at their mean" because ordinal variables do not have means. I am not so worried about that, but it can certainly be useful to use the -at()- option to evaluate the marginal effect or discrete change at values of your choice. A third possibility is to use -margins- and get the average marginal effect (instead of the marginal effect at average values of the covariates). This latter seems to be more often prefered, but it is not without problems: In order to live up to its promise you need to have data that is representative for the population with respect to all variables in your model, while the other measures "only" require that the probability of being included does not depend on the dependent variable. In practice many -logit- models are approximately linear in the probability over the observed range, in which case the difference between these different measures will often be too small to lead to different conclussion. In those studies where the effects are so non-linear that these measures have meaningfull differences, you should worry about whether it is meaningfull to try to summarize such a non-linear effect with one number anyhow. In your case where you have only categorical/ordinal variables and the fact that you are only interested in the additive effect on the probability you can also consider a linear-probability model (just -regress- with the -vce(robust)- option). In that case you get the effects directly. > 2). I am computing the marginal effects also for the purpose of determining the variable's order of influence on the probability of success (which variable has the most influence, has the least, etc) ... but when I compare them with the standardized coefficients, the rankings differ... Which is the more appropriate statistic to use for this purpose? I don't see much added value for standardized coefficients in your case: The explanatory variables are dummies, so they have all the same scale, and the dependent variable also has the same scale. In that case standardizing coefficients won't give you anything you could not get when looking at the raw coefficients. This gives you a clue to what might be going on: The coefficients and especially the odds ratios (exp(coefficient)) are effects in relative terms, they are ratios, while marginal effects are effects in absolute terms, they are differences. Both can be meaningful, and relating the two findings can be really illuminating. See for example: M.L. Buis (2010) "Stata tip 87: Interpretation of interactions in non-linear models", The Stata Journal, 10(2), pp. 305-308. You said that some of your variables are ordinal. In that case you can get one coefficients for those ordinal variables using sheaf coefficients. These are implemented in -sheafcoef-, which you can download by typing -ssc install sheafcoef-, and which is discussed in <http://www.maartenbuis.nl/wp/prop.html>. Hope this helps, Maarten -------------------------- 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**:**st: re: marginal vs discrete effects in logistic regression***From:*Kouji Asakura <asakura.koji@yahoo.com>

- Prev by Date:
**st: hshaz module, survival analysis** - Next by Date:
**Re: st: using the estimates of each individual bootstrap iteration** - Previous by thread:
**st: re: marginal vs discrete effects in logistic regression** - Next by thread:
**Re: st: re: marginal vs discrete effects in logistic regression** - Index(es):