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: OLS assumptions not met: transformation, gls, or glm as solutions? (Out of Office Autoreply: [email protected])


From   <[email protected]>
To   <[email protected]>
Subject   Re: st: OLS assumptions not met: transformation, gls, or glm as solutions? (Out of Office Autoreply: [email protected])
Date   Fri, 21 Dec 2012 00:35:36 +0000

I am out of the office until Tuesday 8th January 2012.  I shall deal with your enquiry upon my return.  Enjoy the festive season!

Sarah Miller 
Pathways Administrator
------------------------------------------------------
Department of Medical Statistics
London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine
Keppel Street
London
WC1E 7HT
http://pathways.lshtm.ac.uk 

>>> Alan Acock <[email protected]> 12/21/12 00:33 >>>

If I run 

regress qual_p conf_p i.sexrare ston_p forg_p sacr_p

were all variables but for sexrare are proportion of the maximum possible value, the interpretations are simple. A change in conf_p of one percentage point predicts a xx(coefficient) percentage point change in the outcome.

When I run

glm qual_p conf_p i.sexrare ston_p forg_p sacr_p, ///
 family(binomial) link(logit) vce(robust)

is there a clear interpretation of the coefficient or some transformation of the coefficients? 

I'm think the answer should be obvious to me, but it is not.

Alan Acock

*
*   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/


*
*   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/


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