Notice: On March 31, it was **announced** that Statalist is moving from an email list to a **forum**. The old list will shut down at the end of May, and its replacement, **statalist.org** is already up and running.

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

From |
David Hoaglin <dchoaglin@gmail.com> |

To |
statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu |

Subject |
Re: st: question about the interaction term |

Date |
Thu, 25 Apr 2013 06:25:23 -0400 |

Dear Vic, You have a single model, not separate "cases" for B=0 and B=1. You have not included any output, so I am not able to work with the numerical estimates of the coefficients. According to the test that you mentioned, when B=1, the slope against A is "like 0." I suspect that, when the coefficient of A*B is added to the coefficient of A, that sum is close enough to 0 that it is not significant. It may help to remember that, as in any regression model, the definition of each coefficient includes the set of other predictors in the model. You may want to remove the interaction from your model and see what happens to the coefficient of A (which does not have the same definition as the coefficient of A in the model that includes the interaction). David Hoaglin On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 12:12 AM, ZHVictor <victerzj2@hotmail.com> wrote: > Dear David, > Thank you for your response. I understand what you are saying. > In B=0 case, I have a significant slope for A > In B=1 case, the slope of A becomes coefficient of A+coefficient of A*B, however it becomes insignificant. > A*B is an interaction term. I have an insignificant coefficient of A*B. That means the coefficient of A*B is like 0 > Thus, in B=1 case, the slope of A is like coefficient of A+0. Therefore, I am expecting in B=1 case, the slope of A should be also significant as in B=0 case. > That is where I am confused. > Thank you! * * 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/

**Follow-Ups**:**RE: st: question about the interaction term***From:*ZHVictor <victerzj2@hotmail.com>

**References**:**st: question about the interaction term***From:*ZHVictor <victerzj2@hotmail.com>

**Re: st: question about the interaction term***From:*David Hoaglin <dchoaglin@gmail.com>

**RE: st: question about the interaction term***From:*ZHVictor <victerzj2@hotmail.com>

- Prev by Date:
**st: Mata: Calculating conditional expectation** - Next by Date:
**st: Question about generating the weight of WLS** - Previous by thread:
**RE: st: question about the interaction term** - Next by thread:
**RE: st: question about the interaction term** - Index(es):