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 |
Nick Cox <n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk> |

To |
"'statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu'" <statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu> |

Subject |
st: RE: Xtgee - noconstant option |

Date |
Thu, 22 Mar 2012 14:18:40 +0000 |

The complication here of using -xtgee- is secondary to the main issue. Consider a very simple regression y = a + bx. The key question is whether the regression using x as predictor improves on a null model in which the mean of y is used to predict y. Change the regression to y = bx and the key question is whether the regression using x as predictor improves on a null model in which zero is used to predict y. On the second criterion almost any model does better. The exceptions are when the mean is exactly zero and the models end up the same. But the comparison is spurious. Any model does better compared with a lower benchmark than compared with a higher benchmark. This is not to say that regression through the origin makes no sense. It sometimes does. Your case does not sound like one of them. A Google reveals many longer explanations. It is nice that what comes first on Googling "r square no intercept" is from our Stata-loving friends at UCLA and is at http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/mult_pkg/faq/general/noconstant.htm Nick n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk -----Original Message----- From: owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu [mailto:owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu] On Behalf Of Solon Moreira Sent: 22 March 2012 13:44 To: statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu Subject: st: Xtgee - noconstant option Dear Statalist members, I'm trying to run an xtgee model predicting firm's market-share on t+1 using a group of explanatory variables regarding firm characteristics (continuous) and contractual aspects of technology transfer contracts (dummy). I am using the following specifications: link (identity) family (Gaussian) corr (exchangeable). My issue here is related with the fact that when I set the option noconstant (go through the origin) all the coefficients become much more significant. Although I would expect that for some variables it makes sense, I do not fully understand this effect as well if it is right to use in that option for an xtgee model. Would someone have a suggestion if the use of noconstant is not indicated in this case? * * 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**:**st: RE: RE: Xtgee - noconstant option***From:*Solon Moreira <sm.ino@cbs.dk>

**References**:**st: Xtgee - noconstant option***From:*Solon Moreira <sm.ino@cbs.dk>

- Prev by Date:
**Re: st: Xtgee - noconstant option** - Next by Date:
**Re: st: Cragg Donald tests** - Previous by thread:
**Re: st: Xtgee - noconstant option** - Next by thread:
**st: RE: RE: Xtgee - noconstant option** - Index(es):