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: RE: Re: pwcompare


From   "Lachenbruch, Peter" <Peter.Lachenbruch@oregonstate.edu>
To   "statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu" <statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu>
Subject   st: RE: Re: pwcompare
Date   Sat, 26 Nov 2011 10:44:03 -0800

I didn't see an answer to this.  I suspect it is related to the fact that the standard errors in the xtmixed model account for the random effects, and so are larger.  Note that the contrasts are the same in both as they are the sample means.

Tonyh

________________________________________
From: owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu [owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu] On Behalf Of Janet Hill [janethill73@yahoo.co.uk]
Sent: Friday, November 25, 2011 8:35 AM
To: statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu
Subject: st: Re: pwcompare

Why does pwcompare give different results after anova and xtmixed? Using the following syntax:
xtmixed lhist i.group##i.time || dog:, reml cov(id)
or
anova lhist group / dog|group time time#group, repeated(time)
followed by
pwcompare group, emptycells(reweigh) eff asbalanced post

I get the following for xtmixed
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             |                            Unadjusted           Unadjusted
             |   Contrast   Std. Err.      z    P>|z|     [95% Conf. Interval]
-------------+----------------------------------------------------------------
lhist        |
       group |
     2 vs 1  |  -.4591643   .5681373    -0.81   0.419    -1.572693    .6543643
     3 vs 1  |   1.200595    .525993     2.28   0.022     .1696677    2.231522
     4 vs 1  |  -.3857097    .525993    -0.73   0.463    -1.416637    .6452175
     3 vs 2  |   1.659759   .5681373     2.92   0.003     .5462306    2.773288
     4 vs 2  |   .0734546   .5681373     0.13   0.897    -1.040074    1.186983
     4 vs 3  |  -1.586305    .525993    -3.02   0.003    -2.617232   -.5553775
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and for the anova
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             |                            Unadjusted           Unadjusted
             |   Contrast   Std. Err.      t    P>|t|     [95% Conf. Interval]
-------------+----------------------------------------------------------------
       group |
     2 vs 1  |  -.4591643   .1047385    -4.38   0.000    -.6722564   -.2460723
     3 vs 1  |   1.200595    .096969    12.38   0.000      1.00331     1.39788
     4 vs 1  |  -.3857097    .096969    -3.98   0.000    -.5829947   -.1884248
     3 vs 2  |   1.659759   .1047385    15.85   0.000     1.446667    1.872851
     4 vs 2  |   .0734546   .1047385     0.70   0.488    -.1396375    .2865467
     4 vs 3  |  -1.586305    .096969   -16.36   0.000     -1.78359    -1.38902
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I can see that the standard errors are different, but the question arises should I use xtmixed or anova for repeated measures?

I am using Stata 12.0, update 10 Nov 2011.

Thanks,
Janet

*
*   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/


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