Bookmark and Share

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

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

st: Interpreting zero-inflated negative binomial Stata output (zinb / zip)

From   Tanuku AP <[email protected]>
To   Stata <[email protected]>
Subject   st: Interpreting zero-inflated negative binomial Stata output (zinb / zip)
Date   Sat, 20 Aug 2011 19:01:25 -0400

Hello all,

The reference entries for zero-inflated poisson and negative binomial are quite scant (at least to me).  I didn't find much either in the list archive or Stata Journal archives.

There is an example on: ; The UCLA example explanation seems to match the inflate() option description in the manual i.e. the logit model determines certain zero outcome.  This seems different from the norm for --logit--, where non-zero value is defined as success.  Is the UCLA explanation correct?

May I also ask if people could refer me to zinb examples that have more interpretive explanations for the estimates [I didn't find much in Baum's Intro book as well as Cameron & Trivedi's book].  While Cameron & Trivedi discuss zip / zinb, they don't go into the details of interpreting the coefficients.  

Also, the irr option seems to exponent the second stage estimates and not the first-stage logit estimates.   I wish Stata manual had more details / examples.

*   For searches and help try:

© Copyright 1996–2018 StataCorp LLC   |   Terms of use   |   Privacy   |   Contact us   |   Site index