Last week, Christian Deindl <[email protected]> wrote:
> I have recently updated Stata 9 to Stata 10 and since then I'm
> getting quite different results using GLLAMM. Most of these
> differences are negligible. Unfortunately there is a huge
> difference in the following model. The significance of my
> macro-indicator change from 0.000 to 0.839 [in P>|z|, Anders' edit].
> Does anybody have experienced anything similar?
>
> syntax: gllamm y x1 x2 ..... , i(id houseid country) f(binom)
> link(logit) eform
I have not been able to reproduce the problem.
Christian sent me his dataset and -gllamm- syntax privately. Christian's
original do-file was convoluted, and the model to be compared had over
20 predictors. I used a 64-bit PC with Windows XP and a 3.4 GHz CPU and
Stata 10/IC under version control for Stata 9.2 and Stata 10. After
4 days, I had to abandon the run of the modified do-file, because I
needed Stata for something else. In the meanwhile, Christian wrote he
could reproduce the problem using the main predictor only. It took about
24 hours to run this -gllamm- model. My v9.2 and 10 results were exactly
the same, and reproduced Christian's v9.2 exp(b) with 5 digits precision
(.89630). Christian's v10 exp(b) differs already on the first digit
(1.0187 instead of .89630), which I cannot explain. Christian is
investigating why his v10 -gllamm- results are so different.
Anders Alexandersson
[email protected]
*
* 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/
