Bookmark and Share

Notice: On April 23, 2014, Statalist moved from an email list to a forum, based at statalist.org.


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: st: another question on the interpretation of rho and atanhrho


From   "David Roodman ([email protected])" <[email protected]>
To   "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject   Re: st: another question on the interpretation of rho and atanhrho
Date   Tue, 8 May 2012 12:28:51 +0000

-0.244 is not tanh(-2.489), so there must be something wrong with this example.
Stipulating a 10% significance level, 2 is more correct.
--David

From	  "Laura R." <[email protected]>
To	  [email protected]
Subject	  Re: st: another question on the interpretation of rho and atanhrho
Date	  Mon, 7 May 2012 20:47:32 +0200
 Dear Maarten,

thanks for the quick response.

So in one of my estimations, atanhrho is -2.489 and rho is -0.244, but
the p-value of atanhrho is > 0.100, which means not significant based
on at least 10%-significance. Now which of the 2 interpretations are
correct:

(1) "persons who are less likely to do/have X, are more likely to
do/have (more of) Y, because the error terms are correlated, shown by
a negative rho and atanhrho"

or

(2) "no significant correlation between the error terms because for
atanrho p>0.100, so no result regarding the dependent variables
(despite that rho and atanrho not equal to 0.000)"


Thinking about interpreting atanrho, not rho, came from Roodman's
(2009) working paper, p. 26, but maybe I missunderstood it.
http://www.cgdev.org/files/1421516_file_Roodman_cmp_FINAL.pdf

LR

*
*   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 1996–2018 StataCorp LLC   |   Terms of use   |   Privacy   |   Contact us   |   Site index