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 |
Stas Kolenikov <skolenik@gmail.com> |

To |
statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu |

Subject |
Re: st: confa with R2>1 |

Date |
Tue, 30 Aug 2011 16:14:01 -0500 |

-sem- will produce the same result, although it does work faster. Sorado would want to specify -robust- option, and if the negative variance of BORED variable retains significance, modify the model. BTW, Stata convention is to have variables in lower case. I guess it follows the Internet (and earlier email) formatting convention that one uses capital letters when they need to SHOUT SOMETHING OUT LOUD. The data set in question was probably exported from another source such as SPSS. On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 10:07 AM, Anders Alexandersson <andersalex@gmail.com> wrote: > It's a "Heywood case", so maybe you specified the wrong model. > Heywood cases are discussed, for example, on pages 362-363 in the SJ > 9(3) article for confa: > http://www.stata-journal.com/article.html?article=st0169 > > An alternative to the user-written -confa- is the new -sem- command in Stata 12. > > Anders Alexandersson > andersalex@gmail.com > > Sorado <Sorada.Tapsuwan@csiro.au> wrote: >> I ran a confa model and found that one of my variables has an R2>1 (see variable called BORED). Did I specify something wrong? >> >> If anyone can help that would be greatly appreciated. >> >> Regards >> >> ****OUTPUT BELOW******* >> >> . confa (neg: ANG ASH GUILT FEAR) (pos: JOYFUL EXCITED HOPE) (amb: IRRITATED BORED) (dep: POWERL CONF DESPAIR), from(ones) >> > [...] >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> | Coef. Std. Err. z P>|z| [95% Conf. Interval] >> -------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- > [...] >> Var[error] | >> BORED | -.7293374 .1959337 -3.72 0.000 -1.11336 -.3453144 > [...] >> -------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- >> R2 | > [...] >> BORED | 1.5988 > [...] > > * > * 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/ > -- Stas Kolenikov, also found at http://stas.kolenikov.name Small print: I use this email account for mailing lists only. * * 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: sigma_u = 0 in xtreg, re***From:*Lloyd Dumont <lloyddumont@yahoo.com>

**Re: st: sigma_u = 0 in xtreg, re***From:*Stas Kolenikov <skolenik@gmail.com>

**Re: st: sigma_u = 0 in xtreg, re***From:*John Antonakis <John.Antonakis@unil.ch>

**Re: st: sigma_u = 0 in xtreg, re***From:*Stas Kolenikov <skolenik@gmail.com>

**RE: st: sigma_u = 0 in xtreg, re***From:*"Schaffer, Mark E" <M.E.Schaffer@hw.ac.uk>

**Re: st: sigma_u = 0 in xtreg, re***From:*John Antonakis <John.Antonakis@unil.ch>

**st: confa with R2>1***From:*<Sorada.Tapsuwan@csiro.au>

**Re: st: confa with R2>1***From:*Anders Alexandersson <andersalex@gmail.com>

- Prev by Date:
**Re: st: xtcorr2 after xtgee** - Next by Date:
**st: Evaluating the importance of interaction effects in logistic regression** - Previous by thread:
**Re: st: confa with R2>1** - Next by thread:
**Re: st: sigma_u = 0 in xtreg, re** - Index(es):