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]

Re: st: ZOIB procedure

From   Prerna S <[email protected]>
To   [email protected]
Subject   Re: st: ZOIB procedure
Date   Tue, 20 Sep 2011 05:20:41 -0400

As a follow-up question, the statistical significance of the marginal
effects differs from the statistical significance of the zoib
regression estimates. How does one explain this difference? And in
explaining results, does one choose zoib results or marginal effects?



On 20 September 2011 05:09, Prerna S <[email protected]> wrote:
> Maarten,
> Below you mention that the Aitchison method provides estimates that
> are not easily interpretable. I am assuming then that zoib does not
> impose this restriction?  I had previously assumed that the
> presentation of zoib results would require presenting marginal effects
> exclusively.  But if that is not the case, how would one interpret the
> estimated coefficients under zoib?
> Thanks.
> Prerna
> On 19 September 2011 04:11, Maarten Buis <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I am guessing, but it seems to me you are worried about correlation of
>> error terms across income sources. This is a hard problem, in part
>> because proportions are inherently (negatively) correlated. If one
>> proportion increases, than the rest will have to decrease. Some work
>> has been done by Aitchison (2003), but he sacrifices an interpretable
>> effect of explanatory variables on the proportion in order to get the
>> correlations right. This is fine if you are mainly interested in those
>> correlations, but a problem otherwise.

*   For searches and help try:

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