Notice: On March 31, it was **announced** that Statalist is moving from an email list to a **forum**. The old list will shut down at the end of May, and its replacement, **statalist.org** is already up and running.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

From |
natasha agarwal <agarwana2@googlemail.com> |

To |
statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu |

Subject |
Re: st: Computing Average Partial Effects after xtprobit, re |

Date |
Mon, 15 Aug 2011 17:52:46 +0100 |

Hello there, Would you by any chance know how would one implement the average partial affects for the random effect model where you introduce mean values of the independent variable to account for unobserved heterogeneity (Woolridge, 2002). Thanks Natasha On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 5:40 PM, natasha agarwal <agarwana2@googlemail.com> wrote: > Hello there, > > Actually I want to compute the fixed effects probit model. However, > knowing the incidental parameter problem, I resort to the solution > prescribed in Woolridge (2002) which is adding the mean variables of > the dependent variable in the estimating specification. > > They (Woolridge, 2002) have shown in their text on how one could > calculate the average partial effects for a random effect probit model > corrected with Mundlak corrections. I understand it conceptually but I > am finding it difficult to implement it in Stata. > > Thanks > Natasha > > > > On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 4:33 PM, Maarten Buis <maartenlbuis@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 5:24 PM, natasha agarwal wrote: >>> I wanted to compute the average partial effects manually after xtprobit, re. >> >> What do you want to do with the random effects? If you want to be >> strict, you would have to average over these as well, and that has not >> been implemented (yet). You use a hybrid solution, where you fix the >> random effects at the mean (0) and average over the remaining >> variables. You can do so by typing: >> >> margins, predict(pu0) dydx(*) >> >> A more elegant solution is to forget about probit and xtprobit and >> move to logit and xtlogit. After that you can just interpret the odds >> ratios, which are independent of the other variables and thus don't >> need such hybrid solutions. >> >> 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/ >> > * * 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: Computing Average Partial Effects after xtprobit, re***From:*natasha agarwal <agarwana2@googlemail.com>

**Re: st: Computing Average Partial Effects after xtprobit, re***From:*Maarten Buis <maartenlbuis@gmail.com>

**Re: st: Computing Average Partial Effects after xtprobit, re***From:*natasha agarwal <agarwana2@googlemail.com>

- Prev by Date:
**st: How to perfom very simple manipulations in large data sets more efficiently** - Next by Date:
**Re: st: Click response changes from Stata 10 Win 7 Pro to Stata 12 Mac OS X Lion,** - Previous by thread:
**Re: st: Computing Average Partial Effects after xtprobit, re** - Next by thread:
**st: How to perfom very simple manipulations in large data sets more efficiently** - Index(es):