[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date index][Thread index]

From |
Richard Williams <[email protected]> |

To |
[email protected] |

Subject |
Re: st: definition of pseudo R^2 for dprobit or probit |

Date |
Tue, 28 Oct 2003 08:23:41 -0500 |

At 10:39 AM 10/28/2003 +0000, Ronan Conroy wrote:

Thanks Nick and Ronan. I have another handout on my web pages entitled "The Evils of R^2" (http://www.nd.edu/~rwilliam/xsoc593/lectures/l16.pdf) so I am very sympathetic and pretty much in agreement with your arguments.But fundamentally, I agree with Nick Cox: R^2 tells you nothing of the utility of the model, either from the theoretical or practical standpoint. As a sole criterion for model selection, it should only be used when there is no-one in the office capable of formulating a theory (and the cleaners have gone home).

However, arguing that a particular measure should not be deified or abused or the sole criterion used seems to me a different issue than what formula best represents the concept the statistic is supposed to measure, in this case proportion of variance explained. That is, if you are going to use an R^2 measure, which formula does it best? All these formulas claim to be analogs to OLS R^2, and I've read various things that say McFadden's R^2 is the best in that respect and that other measures have various problems with them. I agree that placing too much emphasis on a single number is a bad thing, but presenting 5 slightly different numbers that all purport to measure the same concept isn't necessarily much of an improvement. Better may be to present 5 different numbers which represent 5 different concepts of what should be considered best.

So, use R^2 measures with caution and perhaps avoid using them all together, but if you are going to use one, is there any compelling reason for preferring something other than McFadden's statistic? Of course, unless there is universal agreement that McFadden's is best and others are horribly flawed, it doesn't seem like it would kill Stata to report a few others (or at least more clearly label the one that is used so people don't have to try to guess or go rummaging through the manual to try to find it!)

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

Richard Williams, Associate Professor

OFFICE: (574)631-6668, (574)631-6463

FAX: (574)288-4373

HOME: (574)289-5227

EMAIL: [email protected]

WWW (personal): http://www.nd.edu/~rwilliam

WWW (department): http://www.nd.edu/~soc

*

* 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/

**References**:**Re: st: definition of pseudo R^2 for dprobit or probit***From:*Ronan Conroy <[email protected]>

- Prev by Date:
**st: Bootstapping panel data** - Next by Date:
**st: SUREG, FE, N>T** - Previous by thread:
**Re: st: definition of pseudo R^2 for dprobit or probit** - Next by thread:
**st: stata** - Index(es):

© Copyright 1996–2024 StataCorp LLC | Terms of use | Privacy | Contact us | What's new | Site index |