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: st: Negative R-squareds using xtivreg2


From   Nick Cox <njcoxstata@gmail.com>
To   statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu
Subject   Re: st: Negative R-squareds using xtivreg2
Date   Sun, 25 Mar 2012 11:53:52 +0100

Away from plain or vanilla regression, there are numerous different
definitions of R-squared that need not give the same numeric answer.
The help documents the flavo[u]rs reported and their different
definitions. R-sq < 0 usually implies a lousy model in some sense;
such results rarely make it to the literature.

If your dependent variable is binary, it is not clear why you think
this is a good command to use.

Nick

2012/3/25 Rüdiger Vollmeier <ruediger.vollmeier@googlemail.com>:

> I am running an IV regression accounting for country fixed effects
> using the -xtivreg2- command. Stata reports R-squares. However, they
> are surprisingly negative(!). Does anybody know why this is the
> case?!?
>
> Should they be adjusted somehow? Is the fact that my dependent
> variable is binary problematic?

*
*   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