Statalist


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date index][Thread index]

RE: st: random and fixed effects (when the all the outcomes are either positive or negative)


From   "Luis Ortiz" <[email protected]>
To   <[email protected]>
Subject   RE: st: random and fixed effects (when the all the outcomes are either positive or negative)
Date   Fri, 25 Jan 2008 11:15:34 +0100

Dear Maarten,

In the link you recommended to Federica, Dave Jacobs gives the expected
explanation:

"(...) probably because your dependant variable counts for some cases don't
change over time".

I've got a similar problem for a research I'm carrying out on the likelihood
of being over-educated using the European Community Household Panel. It's a
different research from the one I've asked before to the Statalist (and
Stephen Jenkins has been so kind to respond).

In this case, I'm just looking at the state, not a process of transition
from one situation to another; in other words, I'm not doing survival
analysis, but just cross-sectional panel data analysis.

I've tried to run the Hausman test, in order to decide if I may keep the
random effects model (my initial choice) or I should go for a fixed effects
model. I've been careful to exclude any time-invariant covariate.

Yet, the results of output of xtlogit (fe) tell me precisely this: 

note: 6395 groups (12643 obs) dropped due to all positive or
      all negative outcomes.

Quite likely, there are a LOT of individuals (groups) for which all the
observations in the panel reveal that they are EITHER over-educated or not. 

What to do in this case? Does it reveal that the fixed-effects is the wrong
model to specify?....

Any suggestion in this respect would be very welcome

Thanks in advance

Luis Ortiz


-----Mensaje original-----
De: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] En nombre de Maarten buis
Enviado el: viernes, 25 de enero de 2008 10:49
Para: [email protected]
Asunto: Re: st: random and fixed effects

--- [email protected] wrote:
> I am estimating a poisson either  random (xtpoisson) or fixed
> (xtpoisson, fe) effects. When I run the random effects model the
> observations  are about 88210. Instead when I run the fixed effects
> model the observations are about 80230.   Shouldn't I have the same
> number of observations?

Dave Jacobs already answered your question:
http://www.stata.com/statalist/archive/2008-01/msg00684.html

-----------------------------------------
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/
-----------------------------------------


      __________________________________________________________
Sent from Yahoo! Mail - a smarter inbox http://uk.mail.yahoo.com

*
*   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/

*
*   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/



© Copyright 1996–2024 StataCorp LLC   |   Terms of use   |   Privacy   |   Contact us   |   What's new   |   Site index