| ![]() |
From | Richard Williams <Richard.A.Williams.5@ND.edu> |
To | statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu |
Subject | RE: st: RE: mim: reg command |
Date | Fri, 27 Apr 2007 18:11:19 -0500 |
At 05:55 AM 4/27/2007, Maarten Buis wrote:
3) Finally, Stata's excellent simulation tools can help you assess how bad or good"The point estimates seem fine" might suggest that Richard's Rule may sometimes have some redeeming social value! We often aren't concerned with p-values and we often don't need the numbers to be exactly right. For example, a student of mine working with a mim dataset wanted multicollinearity diagnostics, so she just ran the analysis pooling all the imputed data sets. Sometimes, too, it is sufficient to know whether a diagnostic test clearly indicates that there is or is not a potential problem. And, then there are things like the adjust command or Scott Long's spost routines, which help you to interpret results. It may be sufficient for their output to be in the ballpark.
Richard's Rule works compared to Rubin's Rule. The point estimates seem fine, but the
coverage seems to be off. To get a better view of the coverage, you would probably have
to run the simulation longer, but even with 500 simulation it seems pretty clear that with
Richard's Rule you reject a true null hypotheses in more than 5% of the samples, while the
coverage for Rubin's Rule is closer to the nominal 5%.
© Copyright 1996–2025 StataCorp LLC | Terms of use | Privacy | Contact us | What's new | Site index |