--- Reza Daniels <[email protected]> wrote:
> The column is labelled "Evidence", and in both rows it states that
> there is evidence for the null that IIA is satisfied. However, the
> p-values suggest that only one alternative supports the null.
> **** Small-Hsiao tests of IIA assumption
>
> Ho: Odds(Outcome-J vs Outcome-K) are independent of other
> alternatives.
>
> Omitted | lnL(full) lnL(omit) chi2 df P>chi2 evidence
> ---------+---------------------------------------------------------
> 2 | -973.735 -939.394 68.683 52 0.060 for Ho
> 3 | -2506.763 -2475.979 61.567 52 0.171 for Ho
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
In both rows the p-value is more than .05, so in both case the Null
hypothesis is not rejected. I think the terminology in this case is
poorly chosen: with frequentist testing the the more appropriate
terminology is that we either reject or not reject the null hypothesis.
In a Bayesian framework we get evidence for a hypothesis. In Stata you
will rarely encounter this perspective, the only exceptions are when
dealing with BICs or when you are using the winbugsfromstata package by
J. Thompson, T. Palmer, and S. Moreno.
Hope this helps,
Maarten
-----------------------------------------
Maarten L. Buis
Department of Social Research Methodology
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Boelelaan 1081
1081 HV Amsterdam
The Netherlands
visiting address:
Buitenveldertselaan 3 (Metropolitan), room Z434
+31 20 5986715
http://home.fsw.vu.nl/m.buis/
-----------------------------------------
___________________________________________________________
Want ideas for reducing your carbon footprint? Visit Yahoo! For Good http://uk.promotions.yahoo.com/forgood/environment.html
*
* 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/
