From | Richard Williams <[email protected]> |
To | [email protected], Statalist <[email protected]> |
Subject | Re: st: Lrtest versus Test |
Date | Mon, 22 Dec 2003 00:08:02 -0500 |
Thanks Joseph. I won't claim to fully understand this after a quick read, but statements like "a small t-value could indicate "either an insignificant OR a very significant effect" certainly give reason for concern! If I'm reading this correctly, the truly paranoid should not rely on the z statistics reported by the logistic routine. Instead, you should estimate a series of constrained models where you drop one var at a time and compare to the model with all the vars in. Incidentally, SPSS's Nomreg routine with the LRT option will do this for you, so that is one area where the competition may have a leg up on Stata. (This is computationally intensive, however, and I think SPSS says somewhere that it could be a good time to go get coffee if you are going to use this option.)
With logistic regression, especially, I believe that the likelihood ratio test
is generally preferred: there is an uncommon set of circumstances with
logistic regression that lead to a likelihood function that renders the Wald
test wildly inaccurate. It's known as the Hauck-Donner Phenomenon or Hauck-
© Copyright 1996–2024 StataCorp LLC | Terms of use | Privacy | Contact us | What's new | Site index |