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 |
Marlis Gonzalez Fernandez <mgonzal5@jhmi.edu> |

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

Subject |
st: RE: RE: problem running mfx after glm |

Date |
Mon, 15 Aug 2011 23:04:51 +0000 |

I realized that I was not providing enough info right after I hit send. I have not changed the version of stata but probably updated it as updates became available. The following is from my log last fall: glm ReadingCompCombdiv100 Education Age Gender0Male1Female DWIVolume, family(binomial) link(logit) robust note: ReadingCompCombdiv100 has noninteger values Iteration 0: log pseudolikelihood = -82.024027 Iteration 1: log pseudolikelihood = -81.577867 Iteration 2: log pseudolikelihood = -81.577704 Iteration 3: log pseudolikelihood = -81.577704 Generalized linear models No. of obs = 205 Optimization : ML Residual df = 200 Scale parameter = 1 Deviance = 88.00033576 (1/df) Deviance = .4400017 Pearson = 84.32357798 (1/df) Pearson = .4216179 Variance function: V(u) = u*(1-u/1) [Binomial] Link function : g(u) = ln(u/(1-u)) [Logit] AIC = .8446605 Log pseudolikelihood = -81.57770417 BIC = -976.6017 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Robust ReadingC~100 | Coef. Std. Err. z P>|z| [95% Conf. Interval] -------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- Education | -.086737 .0407047 -2.13 0.033 -.1665167 -.0069573 Age | .0250684 .0085852 2.92 0.004 .0082418 .0418951 Gender0Mal~e | -.1477313 .2340908 -0.63 0.528 -.6065409 .3110783 DWIVolume | .0000215 7.40e-06 2.91 0.004 7.03e-06 .000036 _cons | -2.020025 .7707924 -2.62 0.009 -3.53075 -.5092994 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ . mfx, at(mean) Marginal effects after glm y = Predicted mean ReadingCompCombdiv100 (predict) = .20234067 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ variable | dy/dx Std. Err. z P>|z| [ 95% C.I. ] X ---------+-------------------------------------------------------------------- Educat~n | -.0139993 .00647 -2.16 0.030 -.02668 -.001318 12.5317 Age | .004046 .0014 2.89 0.004 .0013 .006792 60.8976 Gender~e*| -.023829 .03777 -0.63 0.528 -.097849 .050191 .492683 DWIVol~e | 3.48e-06 .00000 2.74 0.006 9.9e-07 6.0e-06 13071.5 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ (*) dy/dx is for discrete change of dummy variable from 0 to 1 I am trying to analyze a new variable (categorical 5 levels) still accounting for marginal effects since audcompCombdiv100 is a proportion so I wrote: glm audcompCombdiv100 Age Gender0Male1Female DWIVolume i.Discharge_Location, family(binomial) link(logit) robust mfx, at(mean) -default predict() is unsuitable for marginal-effect calculation -r(119); Is the problem the use of -i.var-? Thanks. M -----Original Message----- From: owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu [mailto:owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu] On Behalf Of Sarah Edgington Sent: Monday, August 15, 2011 6:39 PM To: statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu Subject: st: RE: problem running mfx after glm You haven't given the list enough information to really help you. What do you mean when you say it's giving you a problem? What error message are you actually getting? Have you gotten a new version of Stata since you last run the analysis? If so, have you tried running the dofile using the -version- command? Others may be able to help you with translating to -margins- but you should be able to run your original analysis without rewriting it. -Sarah -----Original Message----- From: owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu [mailto:owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu] On Behalf Of Marlis Gonzalez Fernandez Sent: Monday, August 15, 2011 3:27 PM To: 'statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu' Subject: st: problem running mfx after glm Hello- Did the following analysis last fall: glm ReadingCompCombdiv100 education, family(binomial) link(logit) robust followed by: mfx, at(mean) This provided me with the marginal effects after glm (variable of interest is a proportion). Any idea why this is giving me a problem.having trouble figuring out how to do this using margins instead of mfx. Thanks, M González JHU * * 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/ * * 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: problem running mfx after glm***From:*Marlis Gonzalez Fernandez <mgonzal5@jhmi.edu>

**st: RE: problem running mfx after glm***From:*"Sarah Edgington" <sedging@ucla.edu>

- Prev by Date:
**st: RE: problem running mfx after glm** - Next by Date:
**Re: st: problem running mfx after glm** - Previous by thread:
**st: RE: problem running mfx after glm** - Next by thread:
**Re: st: RE: RE: problem running mfx after glm** - Index(es):