Bookmark and Share

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]

st: Interpreting zero-inflated negative binomial Stata output (zinb / zip)


From   Tanuku AP <tanuku.ap@hotmail.com>
To   Stata <statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu>
Subject   st: Interpreting zero-inflated negative binomial Stata output (zinb / zip)
Date   Sat, 20 Aug 2011 19:01:25 -0400

Hello all,

The reference entries for zero-inflated poisson and negative binomial are quite scant (at least to me).  I didn't find much either in the list archive or Stata Journal archives.

There is an example on: http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/output/Stata_zinb.htm. ; The UCLA example explanation seems to match the inflate() option description in the manual i.e. the logit model determines certain zero outcome.  This seems different from the norm for --logit--, where non-zero value is defined as success.  Is the UCLA explanation correct?

May I also ask if people could refer me to zinb examples that have more interpretive explanations for the estimates [I didn't find much in Baum's Intro book as well as Cameron & Trivedi's book].  While Cameron & Trivedi discuss zip / zinb, they don't go into the details of interpreting the coefficients.  

Also, the irr option seems to exponent the second stage estimates and not the first-stage logit estimates.   I wish Stata manual had more details / examples.


--
Thanks,
Tanuku
 		 	   		  
*
*   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/


© Copyright 1996–2014 StataCorp LP   |   Terms of use   |   Privacy   |   Contact us   |   Site index