--- Joan Holand <[email protected]> wrote:
> I used -desmat- as a prefix (one can use it as a command, too) and
> then compared the output with the results of my manually produced
> model. The both results (including the algebraic sign of some
> effects) are different! The log likelihood value, the Pearson Chisq
> and the AIC value is identic but the deviance and BIC is higher in
> the desmat output than in the manual model.
-desmat- uses the first category in each variable as the reference, did
you do the same for your manually produced dummies? If not then that
would explain the different parameter estimates but the same log
likelihood. Are the differences in BIC and deviance large, or so small
that they could be rounding errors?
Hope this helps,
Maarten
-----------------------------------------
Maarten L. Buis
Department of Social Research Methodology
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Boelelaan 1081
1081 HV Amsterdam
The Netherlands
visiting address:
Buitenveldertselaan 3 (Metropolitan), room Z434
+31 20 5986715
http://home.fsw.vu.nl/m.buis/
-----------------------------------------
___________________________________________________________
All New Yahoo! Mail � Tired of unwanted email come-ons? Let our SpamGuard protect you. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
*
* For searches and help try:
* http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/res/findit.html
* http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
* http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/
