Re: st: AW: Missing F statistics.

[Maarten buis <maartenbuis@yahoo.co.uk>]

--- On Tue, 22/6/10, natasha agarwal wrote:
> But in situations where there are no other way to define
> the clusters and hence the number of constrains are more
> than the number of clusters, can one still report with
> the results obtained with the missing F value? 

You are obviously in trouble, but that is normal in empirical
research. Unfortunately reality has the nasty habbit of not
conforming to our models. The real questions is are your 
troubles so large that you need to be worried. You seem to 
have a general idea about what the problems are, so it is now
up to you to make a judgement call. I gave you a way that may
help with that yesterday:

http://www.stata.com/statalist/archive/2010-06/msg01191.html

Remember we know nothing about your data, how it was collected,
your research question, what is considered important in your 
(sub-)discipline, etc. All these tend to be important when
making the final judgement call whether or not it is wise to
use one technique or the other. All we can do is give you 
some general advise like the one I have given you above. 

-- Maarten

--------------------------
Maarten L. Buis
Institut fuer Soziologie
Universitaet Tuebingen
Wilhelmstrasse 36
72074 Tuebingen
Germany

http://www.maartenbuis.nl
--------------------------


      

*
*   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/