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: reliability with -icc- and -estat icc-
From
"JVerkuilen (Gmail)" <[email protected]>
To
[email protected]
Subject
Re: st: reliability with -icc- and -estat icc-
Date
Tue, 26 Feb 2013 23:41:13 -0500
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 9:26 PM, Lenny Lesser <[email protected]> wrote:
> so I did the model the way Rebecca suggested and get an ICC of 0.34
> (with Rator as a class)
> Then I did it the way you did it and got an ICC as 0.22 (with Rator
> not class, but with covariance as independent)
> I'm concerned in your model the Rator is not a class/dummy variable.
I fit the analog of the randomized block design, with random Rator but
fixed Applications.
. xtmixed Score i.Application if Rator != 4, || Rator:, covariance(identity) var
If you fit it as a class variable but omitting Rator 4 (which I just
tried) it pushes the R.Rator random effect to 0. I took Rebecca's code
(minus the little typo of Rator spelled as Rater) and simply added the
relevant if:
. xtmixed Score i.Application if Rator != 4, || _all: R.Rator,
covariance(identity)
(Notice that both models exclude Rator 4.)
These two models are statistically equivalent because they have the
same residual log likelihood. I'm not sure why the _all: R.Rator is
used here. Rebecca, could you chime in? I'm not saying you're wrong.
Sometimes there are different ways of computing the same model. (I
need to reread the manual.)
--
JVVerkuilen, PhD
[email protected]
"It is like a finger pointing away to the moon. Do not concentrate on
the finger or you will miss all that heavenly glory." --Bruce Lee,
Enter the Dragon (1973)
*
* 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/