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 |
Jeph Herrin <stata@spandrel.net> |

To |
statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu |

Subject |
Re: st: RE: save iterations of xtmelogit - need to break/pause |

Date |
Thu, 09 May 2013 10:37:56 -0400 |

hth, Jeph On 5/9/2013 8:17 AM, JVerkuilen (Gmail) wrote:

On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 1:11 AM, tshmak <tshmak@hku.hk> wrote:Hi Ann, Despite your 160,000 individuals, I am rather unsure you have enough data to fit a model with 4 random effects, if that's what you mean by 4 levels. Since it's a logistic regression, perhaps a better measure of how much data you have is the smaller of the number of 1's and 0's. There's probably huge uncertainty over the variance of the random effects, and Stata is having a hard time converging.100% agree. Everyone always says "I have X thousands of data points!?!?!?" but in a multilevel model the Ns at each level matter. With logistic it's even worse, just as Tim noted, because it's essentially the minimal number of events or non-events that matter. These can become quite small.My suggestion is: 1. Try and fit a simpler model. Perhaps some of the random effects have only a handful number of different values. Perhaps consider treating them as fixed-effects?Yes, start with the random intercept model and build upwards towards the model you want.2. Consider doing it in WinBUGS/OpenBUGS. If you use informative priors, you can pretty much fit anything. You can also use it to tell you whether your model should be fit in Stata. If using different uninformative priors gives you very different results, you probably shouldn't use Stata for your model, and your best bet is either simplify it or use a subjective Bayesian approach.Agreed, but that's no light undertaking. I suspect the amount of effort it would take would be substantial. An alternative would be to look at MCMCglmm in R, which is a nice program but has some quirks in the interface. Jay -- JVVerkuilen, PhD jvverkuilen@gmail.com "They were careless people, Tom and Daisy - they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money of their vast carelessness, or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made." -- F. Scott Fitzgerald * * 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/

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: st: RE: save iterations of xtmelogit - need to break/pause***From:*"JVerkuilen (Gmail)" <jvverkuilen@gmail.com>

**References**:**st: save iterations of xtmelogit - need to break/pause***From:*Ann Montgomery <ann.montgomery@mail.utoronto.ca>

**st: RE: save iterations of xtmelogit - need to break/pause***From:*tshmak <tshmak@hku.hk>

**Re: st: RE: save iterations of xtmelogit - need to break/pause***From:*"JVerkuilen (Gmail)" <jvverkuilen@gmail.com>

- Prev by Date:
**Re: st: do-file editor shortcuts** - Next by Date:
**Re: st: Stata journal paper on interaction terms in count models** - Previous by thread:
**Re: st: RE: save iterations of xtmelogit - need to break/pause** - Next by thread:
**Re: st: RE: save iterations of xtmelogit - need to break/pause** - Index(es):