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 |
Steve Samuels <sjsamuels@gmail.com> |

To |
statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu |

Subject |
Re: st: Missing Wald test with -cluster- option |

Date |
Mon, 28 Nov 2011 18:42:01 -0500 |

John: Perhaps you will find this reference useful: Korn, E. L., & Graubard, B. I. (1990). Simultaneous testing of regression coefficients with complex survey data: Use of Bonferroni t statistics. American Statistician, 270-276. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/2684345 The motivation for the proposal is the limited number of degrees of freedom for tests of multiple parameters in many surveys, where d.f. = no. sampled PSUs - no. strata. Korn, E. L., & Graubard, B. I. (1990). Simultaneous testing of regression coefficients with complex survey data: Use of Bonferroni t statistics. American Statistician, 270-276. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/2684345 On Nov 28, 2011, at 2:17 PM, Austin Nichols wrote: John Antonakis <John.Antonakis@unil.ch>: Mark and I promulgated simulation evidence in the 2007 UK meeting: http://repec.org/usug2007/crse.pdf that one coefficient with M clusters has a very good rejection rate when you include fixed effects for clusters and use the cluster-robust SE. We also said "Preliminary simulations show that the rejection rate rises from 5 percent to 100 percent as the number of coefficients increases from 1 to M." and we fully intended to publish a paper right way. Life has intervened, but there will be a paper (with a lot more new material) one of these days. Let me just interpret that finding in words, though. If you have 50 clusters and you are testing one coef, you have 49 df, if the clustering produces a maximal loss of information. If you are testing 25 coefs, your rejection rate is not going to be anywhere near the nominal rate, and if you are testing 51 coefs, you have a singular variance matrix and the test will not work. Of course, a test of the "model" with has three substantive coefficients and 49 dummies for clusters will not fly, but each one of the 3 coefs should have a pretty good SE and tests involving those 2 of those 3 coefs will only slightly understate true variability of estimates. But YMMV--run your own simulation on your data! (Imputing true effects etc.) Or just cite the 2007 presentation. It reads as an elliptical working paper, anyway. On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 9:46 AM, John Antonakis <John.Antonakis@unil.ch> wrote: > Hi: > > Awhile back, Mark Schaffer replied to a post, regarding a missing Wald test > when using the -robust- or -cluster(id)- option, noting: > > http://stata.com/statalist/archive/2006-09/msg00840.html > > Mark suggested that tests of individual parameters are still interpreted; > however, joint tests (for all parameters) should not (as I guess that the > test would not be trustworthy). If I remember correctly, he has mentioned > this in the past as have other posters too, directly or indirectly. > > What I was hoping for is a published referenced the fact that parameter > tests are interpretable. Also, just wondering whether anyone has written > anything the consequences of this problem (i.e., insufficient clusters) on > tests of overidentification. > > Best, > J. > > -- > __________________________________________ > > Prof. John Antonakis > Faculty of Business and Economics > Department of Organizational Behavior > University of Lausanne > Internef #618 > CH-1015 Lausanne-Dorigny > Switzerland > Tel ++41 (0)21 692-3438 > Fax ++41 (0)21 692-3305 > http://www.hec.unil.ch/people/jantonakis > > Associate Editor > The Leadership Quarterly > __________________________________________ > > * > * 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/ * * 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/

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: st: Missing Wald test with -cluster- option***From:*John Antonakis <John.Antonakis@unil.ch>

**References**:**st: Missing Wald test with -cluster- option***From:*John Antonakis <John.Antonakis@unil.ch>

**Re: st: Missing Wald test with -cluster- option***From:*Austin Nichols <austinnichols@gmail.com>

- Prev by Date:
**Re: st: Stata12 Mac - crashes at "browse if"** - Next by Date:
**st: Error on -pantob-** - Previous by thread:
**Re: st: Missing Wald test with -cluster- option** - Next by thread:
**Re: st: Missing Wald test with -cluster- option** - Index(es):