OK, get it!
thanks so much Nick!
cinzia
Nick Cox wrote:
>Nor did I recommend that.
>
>predict glm, res
>
>is what I recommended knowing that -res-
>is an abbreviation for -response-. You
>should be able to work that kind of
>detail out for yourself by reading the help.
>
>Nick
>[email protected]
>
>Cinzia Rienzo
>
>> Thanks nick,
>> but with glm STATA does not allow : predict glm, resid!
>> I have to check
>
>> Nick Cox wrote:
>>
>>
>> >No, it is not correct. You want
>> >
>> >predict resglm, res
>> >
>> >as Maarten implied.
>> >
>> >Nick
>> >[email protected]
>> >
>> >Cinzia Rienzo
>> >
>> >> thanks Marteen,
>> >> for glm i used: predict resglm
>> >> for ols i use: predict resols, resid
>> >>
>> >> is this correct?
>> >> but when i use the predict of Glm i get (almost) the same result!
>> >
>> >Maarten buis wrote:
>> >
>> >> >Looking at the resglm results I don't think they are the
>> >> residuals but
>> >> >the linear predictor. Did you correctly use -predict- here
>> >> (the options
>> >> >of predict after -glm- are different than those after -regress-).
>> >
>> >Cinzia Rienzo
>> >
>> >> >> i am replicating a paper so i know the results i should
>> >> get; the aim
>> >> >> is
>> >> >> to analyse the residual of a regression;
>> >> >> the problem is that when i regress the following:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> glm lwage1 age educ educage educage2 educage3
>> educage4 [aw=hwt]
>> >> >>
>> >> >> i obtain the same results as the author exept for the
>> >> variance gap of
>> >> >>
>> >> >> the 90-10 centile.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> When instead i regress the following:
>> >> >> reg lwage1 age educ educage educage2 educage3
>> educage4 [aw=hwt]
>> >> >> i get the same 90-10 gap centile but the other results are
>> >> different.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Both regressions give the same coefficient but the residual are
>> >> >> different:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Variable | Obs Mean Std. Dev. Min
>> Max
>> >> >>
>> >>
>> ------------+--------------------------------------------------------
>> >> >> resols | 1761676 -.0012382 .454438 -2.421267
>> 3.340183
>> >> >> resglm | 1761676 1.77811 .3409537 .6651884 2.437594
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Could you please suggest me what could be the problem or is it
>> >> >> methodologically not correct to work with the two
>> regressions and
>> >> >> therefore with the two residuals?
>
>*
>* 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/
>
*
* 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/
