Stata The Stata listserver
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date index][Thread index]

Re: st: GLM and ANOVA complaints


From   Joseph Coveney <jcoveney@bigplanet.com>
To   Statalist <statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu>
Subject   Re: st: GLM and ANOVA complaints
Date   Sat, 27 Sep 2003 13:07:19 +0900

David Airey posted:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

R.B. Darlington (1990) points out that one of the distinguishing 
features of GLM procedures is that they allow the user to specify 
things in terms of ANOVA effect parameters. That is, you don't have to 
create indicator variables as this is done for you. Why was the design 
choice made in Stata to force the user to create and supply indicator 
variables? I know there is xi, but this seems more like a hack, in that 
it stops at two-way interactions. Or I don't know how to properly use 
it to my advantage.

Regarding complex mixed model ANOVAs, I'm hesitating to say that SAS 
Proc Mixed seems to takes care of complex designs much, much more 
quickly, and can deal with more data with the same RAM limits. I'll 
post some comparisons on this once I make sure I'm running off the same 
machine.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I was under the impression that SAS's PROC GLM was basically -anova- / -manova- 
in Stata (and in other statistical software packages), so that you can do in 
Stata what PROC GLM does without needing to create dummy variables.  If David 
could provide an example where he is forced to create indicator variables, 
someone on the list might be able to help.

Joseph Coveney



*
*   For searches and help try:
*   http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/res/findit.html
*   http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
*   http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/



© Copyright 1996–2021 StataCorp LLC   |   Terms of use   |   Privacy   |   Contact us   |   What's new   |   Site index