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 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]

re: Re: st: MIXLOGIT: marginal effects


From   Christopher Baum <kit.baum@bc.edu>
To   "statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu" <statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu>
Subject   re: Re: st: MIXLOGIT: marginal effects
Date   Thu, 9 Feb 2012 09:17:11 -0500

<>
Brendan said

To play devil's advocate, let me mention Mood (2010), who argues that
where unobserved heterogeneity makes it invalid to compare log-odds
estimates sizes across samples, the LPM estimate can be more consistent.


To be pedantic (hey--it's my day job): for an econometrician, consistency is analogous to pregnancy:
you are or you aren't. You often see discussions of relative efficiency, but I've never heard anyone
argue for relative consistency.

Kit

Kit Baum   |   Boston College Economics & DIW Berlin   |   http://ideas.repec.org/e/pba1.html
                             An Introduction to Stata Programming  |   http://www.stata-press.com/books/isp.html
  An Introduction to Modern Econometrics Using Stata  |   http://www.stata-press.com/books/imeus.html


*
*   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