Notice: On April 23, 2014, Statalist moved from an email list to a forum, based at statalist.org.
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
AW: st: fixed vs random effect model
From
"Martin Weiss" <[email protected]>
To
<[email protected]>
Subject
AW: st: fixed vs random effect model
Date
Sun, 4 Jul 2010 21:23:42 +0200
<>
" what makes me thought about using random instead than fixed in
addition to the little variation issue is that when i'm running random
effects, i got very significant results which are very compatible with
the economic theory."
The assumptions underlying the RE model are rarely fulfilled. To choose the
model based on the pleasant answers that it gives you would be a problem for
the referee, I guess. You must sell your choice differently...
HTH
Martin
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] Im Auftrag von amatoallah
ouchen
Gesendet: Sonntag, 4. Juli 2010 19:31
An: [email protected]
Betreff: Re: st: fixed vs random effect model
David, David and Martin Thank you very much for you time and answers,
what makes me thought about using random instead than fixed in
addition to the little variation issue is that when i'm running random
effects, i got very significant results which are very compatible with
the economic theory. This is why i've asked if it is possible to
makethe tradeoff of loosing in efficiency for winning in
consistancy.
Ama
*
* 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/
*
* 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/