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

st: Clarification on biprobit

From   "Alfredo Paloyo" <>
To   <>
Subject   st: Clarification on biprobit
Date   Sat, 26 Feb 2005 11:29:11 +0800

> [3] . biprobit (p = X s) (s = X p),
> with the constraint that [athrho]_cons = 0.
> 3.  Would this be equivalent to running a two separate probits?  I ran

> ". probit p X s" and did not get the same results.

Yes, it is the same.  The reason why I got different results the first
time is because I ran -probit- instead of -svyprobit-, which I should
have.  As I indicated before, I have survey data with pweight.

> 4.  -mfx- is able to compute the marginal effects but fails for the 
> standard error, returning "warning:  predict() expression unsuitable 
> for standard error calculation".  Can I still be confident in 
> interpreting the marginal effects in this case?

First, -mfx- fails to compute the standard errors if I run it after the
constrained -biprobit-.  However, if I run two separate -svyprobit-'s
(which, as mentioned, gives me the same results as the constrained
-biprobit-), -mfx- is able to compute the standard errors in both cases.
The marginal probability (p = 1) in the bivariate probit is exactly the
same as the "probability of positive outcome" in the single-equation
probit.  I suppose it is no problem if I use the standard errors
reported by -mfx- after -svyprobit-.

The question of confidence about the accuracy of the reported dy/dx's
without standard errors has not been resolved:

The rest of my questions
( are still
unresolved.  I am particularly interested in questions 5-7.  Any ideas
would be tremendously appreciated.

Much thanks.


*   For searches and help try:

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