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 |
Lucas <lucaselastic@gmail.com> |

To |
statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu |

Subject |
st: Clarification Re: Stata 13, + |

Date |
Mon, 10 Jun 2013 11:35:33 -0700 |

This is GOOD NEWS!!! I have a clarification request and a documentation . . . request. Clarification: Am I correct in understanding that the perpetual license entails exactly the same terms as before if I do not choose the maintenance option? Am I correct in understanding that I will be able to update stata (as long as it is still stata 13.x) if I choose not to pay the maintenance option? Or, am I mistaken, and the maintenance fee is required to "maintain" an up-to-date stata prior to the next major release? Documentation Request: It is great that stata allows users to look through the manual for the new release early. I did, and found myself wishing for one simple change in the multilevel segment, an addition, really. Many analysts use the multilevel model to introduce level-2 variables into equations for level-1 slopes. So, for example, the analyst might add a variable for per pupil expenditure to the model such that it alters the slope for parents' income in a model predicting student test score. This is a common use of the MLM (e.g., Mason, Wong, and Entwisle 1983; Bryk and Raudenbush 1986; Gamoran 1992; McCall 2000; Beise and Voland 2002; Hank and Kreyenfeld 2003; Lucas and Berends 2007; Flaherty and Brown 2010). Yet, when I look at the manual, it is VERY difficult to find a single example of the syntax one should use to introduce a level-2 variable into the model appropriately such that it is specified as (essentially) a regressor in the equation for a given slope. One finds a few examples where a level-2 variable is entered in (essentially) as a regressor in an equation for the intercept. I understand the intercept/slope distinction is "uneasy," yet, this seems even more reason to wonder -- is it not possible to offer just a few examples of the syntax for the common use of the MLM to explain variation in one or more level-1 slopes? We all tend to look at methods from our location in specific communities. And, I accept my community is just one of many such that manuals will often have lots of material not directly relevant to my work. Yet, as I would go so far as to say that in sociology almost no one (comparatively) estimates the MLM simply to sweep out nuisance variation, and the main use is to introduce level-2 (or higher) variables, it seems odd to have almost zero examples of this use. I am not complaining, just observing that it is VERY easy to specify a model very different from the one one is trying to estimate, because of the increasing complexity of the possibilities (which is a good thing). Given that complexity, a few examples that show how to specify this kind of model, which many people want to estimate, would be extremely helpful. Thus, my request for future documentation through stata for this common (in some fields) use of the MLM. Respectfully, Sam * * 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/

- Prev by Date:
**Re: st: RE: Testing for instrument relevance and overidentification when the endogeneous variable is used in interaction terms** - Next by Date:
**RE: st: RE: Testing for instrument relevance and overidentification when the endogeneous variable is used in interaction terms** - Previous by thread:
**st: FW: Scientific Notation with svy** - Next by thread:
**st: Clarification Re: Stata 13, +** - Index(es):