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]
Re: st: "not concave"
Wahideh Achbari <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Re: st: "not concave"
Fri, 1 Mar 2013 14:24:38 +0100
Thanks for this Nick. Here is the syntax:
sem (Poleff -> opinion_not_vote) (Poleff -> say_pol) (Poleff ->
care_pol) (Poleff -> pol_not_complex), method(mlmv) standardized
latent(Poleff ) nocapslatent
(47 all-missing observations excluded)
There was no fit at all as the iterations kept running with "not
concave" in brackets.
If you need the data I can also send that.
On 1 March 2013 14:18, Nick Cox <email@example.com> wrote:
> It's not the model; it's your log-likelihood function that is awkward
> over part of the parameter space.
> It's important to realise also that maximum likelihood is emphatically
> not an algorithm. It is an estimation method.
> This isn't necessarily a big problem. Nor is the absence of warning
> messages from other software necessarily diagnostic. Perhaps Stata is
> just more explicit, or they used different algorithms to implement
> their fits. It's difficult to say.
> However, it is not clear from your post whether the command you used
> -- not even spelled out here -- converged to give a fit.
> To say more experts in this technique (not me) would need to see your
> command syntax and results from Stata.
> Your post is strong on "I think I have a problem" but much more
> context is needed for a fuller answer. See the FAQ on advice on this.
> On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 12:55 PM, Wahideh Achbari
> <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> Here's a query about a very simple confirmatory factor analysis with 4
>> factors. I have been trying to estimate this model, but unfortunately
>> the model is "not concave" running a Maximum Liklihood algorithm. What
>> surprises me most is that I have been running the same model in AMOS
>> and MPLUS without any difficulties. I would like to know what can be
>> done to remedy this. Your help is greatly appreciated.
> * 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: