Statalist


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

st: what's wrong witt bootstrap in seemingly unrelated regression


From   [email protected]
To   [email protected]
Subject   st: what's wrong witt bootstrap in seemingly unrelated regression
Date   Sat, 07 Mar 2009 14:05:46 -0500

Dear all,

I am doing seemingly unrelated regression, using "sureg()()(), const()isure". Since the number of my observations is very small, I am tring to do it again with bootsrap method. Now I have two questions:

1. The first command I used was " bootstrap _b, reps(500): sureg()()(), const()isure". But it took such a long time, so I changed reps(500) to reps(2) to have a try. At the end there is an error: r(301), last estimations not found.

Then I dropped "isure", so the command becomes " bootstrap _b, reps(500): sureg()()(), const()". This time the results came out quickly. Does that mean "bootsrtap" can't be used with "isure"? Why? Then how can I get the bootsrap results base on my origianl sureg with "isure"? Since the coef. based on sureg with and without "isure" are totally different.

2. I find the coef. after bootstraping are exactly the same as the original regression. I am wondering if the only thing I should care about is p value. If bootsrap p value is similar to the original one, it means the original regression results based on small number of observations is correct. Is it right?

Thank you very much!

Jingjing Li
U of T


*
*   For searches and help try:
*   http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search
*   http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
*   http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/



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