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]
Re: st: OLS assumptions not met: transformation, gls, or glm as solutions?
From
Alan Acock <[email protected]>
To
[email protected]
Subject
Re: st: OLS assumptions not met: transformation, gls, or glm as solutions?
Date
Thu, 20 Dec 2012 16:33:58 -0800
If I run
regress qual_p conf_p i.sexrare ston_p forg_p sacr_p
were all variables but for sexrare are proportion of the maximum possible value, the interpretations are simple. A change in conf_p of one percentage point predicts a xx(coefficient) percentage point change in the outcome.
When I run
glm qual_p conf_p i.sexrare ston_p forg_p sacr_p, ///
family(binomial) link(logit) vce(robust)
is there a clear interpretation of the coefficient or some transformation of the coefficients?
I'm think the answer should be obvious to me, but it is not.
Alan Acock
*
* For searches and help try:
* http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search
* http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/resources/statalist-faq/
* http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/