Bookmark and Share

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

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

Re: st: Model identification in Stata sem()

From   "JVerkuilen (Gmail)" <>
Subject   Re: st: Model identification in Stata sem()
Date   Sat, 8 Dec 2012 10:42:34 -0500

On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 4:13 AM, John Antonakis <> wrote:
> Right.  A model cannot have negative degrees (-1) of freedom; it is obvious
> that it is not defined.  Though in these cases it would be good if Stata
> refused to estimate it or gave an explicit message that the model is
> undefined.

Yes, definitely. -factor-, for instance, gives a solution at a Heywood
case but it quite appropriately whines. It would be good if -sem- did
the same thing. I definitely think it should give the solution because
that's often helpful for figuring out what the identification problem
is, but there should be a hefty cautionary note. While I have the
strong habit of checking the size of the standard errors of models I
fit and often output the parameter VCE to check for ridiculous values,
many folks do not.
*   For searches and help try:

© Copyright 1996–2017 StataCorp LLC   |   Terms of use   |   Privacy   |   Contact us   |   Site index