Notice: On April 23, 2014, Statalist moved from an email list to a forum, based at statalist.org.

# Re: st: Comparaison of turning points (Inverted U curve) for the same model on different samples

 From Maarten Buis To statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu Subject Re: st: Comparaison of turning points (Inverted U curve) for the same model on different samples Date Mon, 4 Jul 2011 09:15:04 +0200

```On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 10:06 PM, L.M.A. Mulotte wrote:
> I have an OLS model that includes both a linear effect and the quadratic term.
>
> I would like to do a test that compares whether the turning points obtained with two different samples are significantly different.

One way to get there is to estimate one model for both samples and
include interaction terms between the dummy south and all other
explanatory variables. This will get you almost the same model as when
you estimate the two models separately. The only difference is that
the model with interaction terms assumes that the residual variance is
the same across groups (homoscedasticity). If you think that matters
you can add the -vce(robust)- option. After estimating the single
model with interaction terms you can use -nlcom- to compute the two
turning points with their confidence intervals, and use -testnl- to
test whether the two turning points are equal.

In the example below I use the new factor variable notation to create
the interaction terms and the square terms. I think they are
convenient for various reasons, but the one disadvantage is that I can
never remember how the different parameters are called, which is
important for commands like -nlcom- and -testnl-. So I often "replay"
the same regression, i.e. type -regress- without any variables,
followed by a comma and whatever display options I want, in this case
-coeflegend-. This gives me a legend assigning names to the different
coefficients.

*---------------------- begin example ------------------------
use http://www.stata-press.com/data/r11/nlswork, clear
// estimate the model
reg ln_wage  i.south i.south#(c.age##c.age c.grade c.birth_yr)

// see how the coefficients are called
reg, coeflegend

// turning points:
nlcom (north:-_b[0b.south#c.age]/(2*_b[0b.south#c.age#c.age])) ///
(south:-_b[1.south#c.age] /(2*_b[1.south#c.age#c.age] ))

// test whether turning points are equal:
testnl 	-_b[0b.south#c.age]/(2*_b[0b.south#c.age#c.age]) = ///
-_b[1.south#c.age] /(2*_b[1.south#c.age#c.age] )
*----------------------- end example -------------------------
(For more on examples I sent to the Statalist see:
http://www.maartenbuis.nl/example_faq )

Hope this helps,
Maarten

Ps. Notice that in this example the confidence intervals overlap but
the test rejects the null-hypothesis that the two turning points are
equal. This is not a contradiction, it just shows that checking
whether two confidence intervals overlap is not a proper test of the
hypothesis that the two estimates are the same (it ignores the
covariance between the estimates). A very readable discussion of this
issue can be found in: Gellman, A. and H. Stern (2006) "The Difference
Between `Significant' and `Not Significant' is not Itself
Statistically Significant" The American Statistician, 60(4): 328--331.
<http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/published/signif4.pdf>

--------------------------
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/
```