Re: st: gllamm and relative risk

[Stas Kolenikov <skolenik@gmail.com>]

"Does not work" meaning what? Does not converge? Says "log(link) is
not appropriate with binary data and pweights" (I highly doubt that)?
Issues some other sort of invalid syntax message when it processes the
options? Produces some other awkward error, like matrix is not
invertible at some point? Check what the FAQ says about specific vs
vague requests.

I know nothing about relative risks, but I suspect that taking logs of
probabilities will lead to weird results unless all probabilities are
tiny. Otherwise, there's a risk of getting the predicted probability
greater than 1. That might be what -gllamm- stumbles upon, but that
ain't -gllamm-'s fault, that's your modeling decision.

On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Hillel Alpert
<HALPERT@hsph.harvard.edu> wrote:
> Thank you for your response and advice.
>
> I have a single weight variable at level 1. The labeling seems to be correct. The command with link(logit) works with pweight, but still not with link(log).
>


-- 
Stas Kolenikov, also found at http://stas.kolenikov.name
Small print: I use this email account for mailing lists only.
*
*   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/