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 14:01:01 -0500 (EST)

Thanks for the example.  It's interesting that they are different in my case.  I suspect it has something to do with the -over- option you used.  -over- doesn't work in my models, so the difference must be because I am estimating the margins incorrectly.  

I get the error "option over() not allowed r(198)."  I am assuming this is because -over- treats each group as its own subpopulation, but I am already specifying a subpopulation that is my analytic subsample using svy, subpop().  

Instead of -over- I have tried "margins varA#varB, [options]" and "margins varA, at(varB=(1 2 3)) [other options]" and each gives slightly different results, neither of which match the results obtained by "ibn.varA##ibn.varB".  

Sorry to be so pesky to keep pushing this question of what else I should use besides -over-, but it's clear that the two attempts I just mentioned are incorrect.
Thanks for your help.


*
*   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