 |
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: st: dependent variables= mortality rates in GEE and sample size????
|
From |
Alison McCarthy <[email protected]> |
|
To |
stata <[email protected]> |
|
Subject |
RE: st: dependent variables= mortality rates in GEE and sample size???? |
|
Date |
Fri, 30 Oct 2009 12:43:07 +1030 |
<[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Dear Maarten
Thanks for this thoughtful reply. It is a very interesting point you make=
=2C and one I try and think about often. Oh the limitations of ecological d=
ata...=20
Best wishes and thanks again
----------------------------------------
> Date: Thu=2C 29 Oct 2009 23:21:50 +0000
> From: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: st: dependent variables=3D mortality rates in GEE and sample=
size????
> To: [email protected]
>
> --- On Thu=2C 29/10/09=2C Alison McCarthy wrote:
>> I have panel data of 38 countries over the period 1980 to
>> 2005. I have calculated age standardized mortality rates in
>> each of these countries. Can I use these as the outcome
>> variable of internet in my GEE model or is there an issue
>> because they are rates?
>> Also is a sample size of 38 countries (obs 748) too small?
>
> I don't think that the sample size is an issue. Actually=2C it
> is not ideal=2C but there isn't much you can do about it=2C as
> you probably got already all countries for which this data
> is easily available.
>
> Anyhow the real problem is how you want to interpret the
> results: has internet access an influence on an individuals
> probability of dying (soon) or on the mortality rate in a
> country. These effects can be very different and easily
> have opposite signs=2C so the one says very little about the
> other. Consider for example voting republican or democrat
> in the US: The rich states vote democrat (east coast and
> west coast) while the poor states vote republican. However=2C
> rich people are more likely to vote republican and the
> poor more likely to vote democrat: so the effect of wealth
> on the state level is exactly the opposite of the effect
> of wealth on the individual level. As a consequence=2C your
> analysis will tell you something about differences
> between countries=2C but it will tell you virtually nothing
> about differences between individuals. This phenomenon is
> sometimes known as the ecological fallacy. If you are
> interested in the differences between states then this is
> not a big deal=2C but if you want to know what is happening
> to individuals ...
>
> Hope this helps=2C
> Maarten
>
> --------------------------
> Maarten L. Buis
> Institut fuer Soziologie
> Universitaet Tuebingen
> Wilhelmstrasse 36
> 72074 Tuebingen
> Germany
>
> http://www.maartenbuis.nl
> --------------------------
>
>
>
>
> Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.co=
m
>
> *
> * For searches and help try:
> * http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search
> * http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
> * http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/
=20
_________________________________________________________________
Take a peek at other people's pay and perks Check out The Great Australian =
Pay Check
http://clk.atdmt.com/NMN/go/157639755/direct/01/=
*
* For searches and help try:
* http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search
* http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
* http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/