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 |
Steven Samuels <sjsamuels@gmail.com> |

To |
statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu |

Subject |
Re: st: In this particular case: should I prefer clustering or a random-effects model |

Date |
Thu, 7 Jul 2011 22:23:39 -0500 |

Andrea Bennet "But just from a theoretical point of view, I thought that a random effects model would be preferred because then I would treat the effects of "classID" as a random sample of the effects of all the classes in the full population." There is no theoretical justification for your preference, which is apparently based on the coincidence that "random" appears in the term "random effects" and "random sampling". "Random effects" are assumed to be generated from a parametric distribution (e.g. Gaussian). "Random samples" arise from a designed sampling process. There is no theoretical relation between the two. Steve Steven J. Samuels Consultant in Statistics 18 Cantine's Island Saugerties, NY 12477 USA Voice: 845-246-0774 Fax: 206-202-4783 sjsamuels@gmail.com Thanks for the link and your help! I indeed do have a cluster-randomized design (treatment intervention was on the class level). With respect to FE. I have included fixed-effects dummies for each class. This results in dropped variables (classID dummies) and renders the treatment intervention to be insignificant. Performing a standard regression with <reg score treatment controls, cluster(classID)> is fine. Performing <xtreg score treatment controls, i(classID) mle/re> is fine too while <xtreg ... , i(classID) fe> results in dropped independent variables (which measure differences on the class level). But just from a theoretical point of view, I thought that a random effects model would be preferred because then I would treat the effects of "classID" as a random sample of the effects of all the classes in the full population. Best regards! Andrea On Jul 7, 2011, at 14:37 , Austin Nichols wrote: > f in fact you have a cluster-randomized design, you should have > calculated power (required sample size, minimum detectable effect > size, etc.) in advance assuming the analysis design (pooled, FE, > multilevel hierarchical model, etc.) to be used once data is > collected, using e.g. > http://www.urban.org/publications/1001394.html > or your own custom simulations, so you should not be designing the > analysis after the data has been collected! * * 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/

**References**:**st: In this particular case: should I prefer clustering or a random-effects model***From:*Andrea Bennett <mac.stata@gmail.com>

**Re: st: In this particular case: should I prefer clustering or a random-effects model***From:*Austin Nichols <austinnichols@gmail.com>

**Re: st: In this particular case: should I prefer clustering or a random-effects model***From:*Andrea Bennett <mac.stata@gmail.com>

- Prev by Date:
**st: defining program that is involved with stata and mata interaction** - Next by Date:
**st: loop for graphs** - Previous by thread:
**Re: st: In this particular case: should I prefer clustering or a random-effects model** - Next by thread:
**Re: st: In this particular case: should I prefer clustering or a random-effects model** - Index(es):