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: Marginal Effects after Biprobit with Reliable Standard Errors?
From
Austin Nichols <[email protected]>
To
[email protected]
Subject
Re: st: Marginal Effects after Biprobit with Reliable Standard Errors?
Date
Tue, 1 Jun 2010 15:29:23 -0400
Claudia Berg <[email protected]>
See for starters:
http://www.stata.com/statalist/archive/2010-02/msg00045.html
On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 6:44 PM, Claudia Berg <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dear Statalist,
>
> I am trying to obtain marginal effects with reliable standard errors after a
> Seemingly Unrelated Biprobit model. I have tried using the commands "mfx
> compute, predict()" but Stata warns that it is "unsuitable" for biprobit and
> imposes the option "nose". I know that the option "force" can be used to
> obtain standard errors but with no guarrantee that they are reliable. I
> have refered to the earlier discussion on statalist found at
> http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/stat/mfx_nose.html which says that: "if
> diag(vce) shows a large relative difference (say, bigger than 10^-2 for
> example) the standard errors given by using force will probably be
> wrong..." I checked the "diagnose(vce)" option for my data and found that
> for my data the relative difference was about 0.029.
>
> Can anyone suggest a way to get reliable standard errors? If I am forced to
> use "force", how unreliable would the standard errors be?
>
> Thank you in advance for any and all advice and comments!
*
* 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/