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]

From |
"Steve Rothenberg" <drlead@prodigy.net.mx> |

To |
<statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu> |

Subject |
st: retransformation of ln(Y) coefficient and CI in regression |

Date |
Sun, 5 Jun 2011 10:26:37 -0500 |

I have a simple model with a natural log dependent variable and a three level factor predictor. I?ve used . regress lnY i.factor, vce(robust) to obtain estimates in the natural log metric. I want to be able to display the results in a graph as means and 95% CI for each level of the factor with retransformed units in the original Y metric. I?ve also calculated geometric means and 95% CI for each level of the factor variable using . ameans Y if factor==x simply as a check, though the 95% CI is not adjusted for the vce(robust) standard error as calculated by the -regress- model. Using naïve transformation (i.e. ignoring retransformation bias) with . display exp(coefficient) from the output of -regress- for each level of the predictor, with the classic formulation: Level 0 = exp(constant) Level 1 = exp(constant+coef(1)) Level 2 = exp(constant+coef(2)) the series of retransformations from the -regress- command is the same as the geometric means from the series of -ameans- commands. When I try to do the same with the lower and upper 95% CI (substituting the limits of the 95% CI for the coefficients) from the -regress- command, however, the retransformed IC is much larger than calculated from the- ameans- command, much more so than the differences in standard errors from regress with and without the vce(robust) option would indicate. I?ve discovered -levpredict- for unbiased retransformation of log dependent variables in regression-type estimations by Christopher Baum in SSC but it only outputs the bias-corrected means from the preceding -regress-. To be sure there is some small bias in the first or second decimal place of the mean factor levels compared to naïve retransformation. Am I doing something wrong by treating the 95% CI of each level of the factor variable in the same way I treat the coefficients without correcting for retransformation bias? Is there any way I can obtain either the retransformed CI or the bias-corrected retransformed CI for the different levels of the factor variable in the original metric of Y? I'd like to retain the robust SE from the above estimation as there is considerable difference in variance in each level of the factor variable. Steve Rothenberg National Institute of Public Health Cuernavaca, Morelos, Mexico Stata/MP 11.2 for Windows (32-bit) Born 30 Mar 2011 * * 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/

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: st: retransformation of ln(Y) coefficient and CI in regression***From:*Roger Newson <r.newson@imperial.ac.uk>

**st: RE: retransformation of ln(Y) coefficient and CI in regression***From:*Nick Cox <n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk>

- Prev by Date:
**st: RE: Drop observations in panel data if equal** - Next by Date:
**st: How to interprete Wooldridge test for autocorrelation in panel data** - Previous by thread:
**st: Drop observations in panel data if equal** - Next by thread:
**st: RE: retransformation of ln(Y) coefficient and CI in regression** - Index(es):