Notice: On April 23, 2014, Statalist moved from an email list to a forum, based at statalist.org.
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: st: how to interpret interaction effects in negative binomial model
From
Maarten buis <[email protected]>
To
[email protected]
Subject
Re: st: how to interpret interaction effects in negative binomial model
Date
Tue, 23 Mar 2010 01:08:48 -0700 (PDT)
--- On Tue, 23/3/10, WANG Shiheng wrote:
> I have a question about how to interpret the interaction
> items in negative binomial regression.
>
> In the following model “post” is a dummy variable (0 or
> 1) to indicate two different periods (0 represents the
> first period, 1 represents the second period).
> “treatment” is a dummy variable (0 or 1) to indicate two
> different groups –“treatment sample”(1) vs. “control
> sample” (0). The interaction is the product of the two
> dummies. The dependent variable is the number of analysts.
<snip>
> coef se
> post .0610886 .0743914
> treatmen -2.975135 .1591135
> post*treatment .214007 .0730457
I would analyse these results in terms of incidence rate
ratios, by adding the -irr- option. You can do it also by
hand, by computing irr = exp(coef) (but why do it yourself
if Stata can do it for you?). The basic logic behind this
type of interpretation of interaction terms in non-linear
models is discussed here:
http://www.maartenbuis.nl/wp/interactions.html
To come back to your case:
The expected number of analysist in the non-treatment group
increases by a factor exp(.061)= 1.06 (i.e. 6%) when a firm
went from the pre-period to the post-period. This ratio is
however not significant. [1]
This effect of post increases by a factor of exp(.214) =
1.24 (i.e. 24%) if the firm is in the treatment group. This
change in effect is significant. [1]
The expected number of analysists in the pre-period group
changes by a factor of exp(-2.975) = .05 (i.e. a change of
-95%) when a firm receives the treatment. This effect is
significant. [1]
This effect of treatment changes by a factor of exp(.214) =
1.24 (i.e. the effect becomes 24% less negative) in the
post-period. This effect is significant. [1]
Hope this helps,
Maarten
[1] It may come as a surprise that I use the test that
coef = 0 to test the hypothesis that exp(coef) = 1. The
logic behind this choice is discussed here:
http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/stat/2deltameth.html
--------------------------
Maarten L. Buis
Institut fuer Soziologie
Universitaet Tuebingen
Wilhelmstrasse 36
72074 Tuebingen
Germany
http://www.maartenbuis.nl
--------------------------
*
* 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/