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]

Re: st: Interpreting 3 way dummy interaction with margins


From   Colleen Nugent <cnugent@sociology.rutgers.edu>
To   statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu
Subject   Re: st: Interpreting 3 way dummy interaction with margins
Date   Tue, 07 Feb 2012 07:57:20 -0500 (EST)

I'd like to chime in to this conversation.  My apologies if this is a "dumb" question:  Maarten, if your tip for leaving out the reference categories is used with logistic regression and exponentiated coefficients, how is this different than the "predicted odds" generated with the margins command and "expression(exp(xb()))"?  

Actually, I know that it is different because I ran it, but I don't know why it should be different.  In my case the odds without the ref cat are all under 1.00 for the groupings on my interaction variables, but with the predicted odds using margins, they are all over 1.00.  So I guess I'm not understanding something here about what margins does.

Thanks,
Colleen
*
*   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