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, is already up and running.

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

Re: st: heteroskedasticity in ordered probit model

From   Richard Williams <>
To   "" <>
Subject   Re: st: heteroskedasticity in ordered probit model
Date   Sun, 23 Dec 2012 12:04:15 -0500

Ologit/oprobit models fare a bit better because there is more info in
an ordinal variable. Nonetheless I agree that the appearance of hetero
is often caused by a mis-specified model, e.g important variables are
omitted. There are all sorts of issues with a hetero model (including
the possibility of radically different interpretations of the results,
which the previously mentioned SJ articles also discusses). So, if you
can find a way to not use one, you will often be better off.

Sent from my iPad

On Dec 23, 2012, at 11:31 AM, "JVerkuilen (Gmail)"
<> wrote:

> Rich Williams' good advice is apropos, but the heteroscedastic probit
> model is kind of fragile and there's an inherent ill-conditioning to
> it. You may well be running it too lean in terms of N. I say this
> speaking as someone who has advocated for the interpretation of
> heteroscedasticity terms in models as often being substantively
> important, so if it's important to you then it may be worth modeling,
> but often heteroscedasticity is "apparent", caused primarily by an
> omitted variable, a poor choice of link function (i.e., maybe you
> should have fit logit or even cauchit instead), or something else.
> You may also be better off simply using bootstrapping for your standard errors.
> Just some things to think about.
> *
> *   For searches and help try:
> *
> *
> *
*   For searches and help try:

© Copyright 1996–2015 StataCorp LP   |   Terms of use   |   Privacy   |   Contact us   |   Site index