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 |
"JVerkuilen (Gmail)" <jvverkuilen@gmail.com> |

To |
statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu |

Subject |
Re: st: How to deal with the quasi-complete separation problem in the logit part of ZINB analysis |

Date |
Sun, 30 Sep 2012 10:14:11 -0400 |

On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 2:18 AM, ���<smztsmzt@163.com> wrote: > > I encountered the quasi-complete separation problem in my data when I doing the ZINB analysis in Stata. > > I have found and installed the firthlogit ADO file which is very useful to deal with the separation effect by using the PML method, but how could I use the same way in the ZINB analysis? Does any one know that there might be some similar package, command, parameters or ADO files that > could take the same effect in the ZINB analysis? In my experience the ZINB is quite challenging to fit. You have both negative binomial overdispersion and excess zeros. I'd try fitting a ZIP or simplify the ZI component of the model, assuming you are using some predictors for it. I'm sure with some programming the ideas in -firthlogit- could be extended to other models. Essentially from the math it looks like an approximation to a Jeffrey's prior in a fully Bayesian analysis. (Update: Went and looked at the paper by Firth and that's exactly what it is!) Other priors could similarly help. Often you can use a "pseudo-data" approach and add a few fake data cases to approximate a prior. Any recommendations beyond that would require some information about the dataset. If all your predictors are discrete you can often simply add a few observations to the cells created by the table. It might be to add a few cases with average covariate values and use MI to predict observations. Note that all these *tricks* are just that, tricks or devices that are not well-founded theoretically. Jay * * For searches and help try: * http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search * http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/resources/statalist-faq/ * http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: st: How to deal with the quasi-complete separation problem in the logit part of ZINB analysis***From:*Nick Cox <njcoxstata@gmail.com>

**References**:**st: How to deal with the quasi-complete separation problem in the logit part of ZINB analysis***From:*叶鹏鹏 <smztsmzt@163.com>

- Prev by Date:
**Re: st: Looping within a subset under a certain condition** - Next by Date:
**Re: st: How to deal with the quasi-complete separation problem in the logit part of ZINB analysis** - Previous by thread:
**st: How to deal with the quasi-complete separation problem in the logit part of ZINB analysis** - Next by thread:
**Re: st: How to deal with the quasi-complete separation problem in the logit part of ZINB analysis** - Index(es):