Notice: On April 23, 2014, Statalist moved from an email list to a forum, based at statalist.org.
| From | Dalhia <ggs_da@yahoo.com> |
| To | statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu |
| Subject | Re: st: xtnbreg, nbreg, and tests of assumptions |
| Date | Wed, 15 Dec 2010 09:12:34 -0800 (PST) |
oops sorry. don't know what I was thinking. Thanks Mary for the correction.
Here are the results for xtnbreg that don't make sense. Basically, I have panel data on hospitals (private, public, and associates), and looking at the averages of the number of training days for each hospital type, I can see that private hospitals have lower number of training days compared to public hospitals. Associate hospitals fall in the mid-range. However, when I run this model using xtnbreg (with random effects), I get a funny result. It looks like public and associates have lower rate of training days in a year compared to private. Am I interpreting the coefficients wrong or is there something else going on? (output attached below).
When I run it using nbreg I get the opposite result (the result I was expecting - public and associates are have greater rate of training per year compared to private).
Thanks for your help.
Dalhia
. xtnbreg train asso pub if train<12000, re irr
note: you are responsible for interpretation of non-count dep. variable
Fitting negative binomial (constant dispersion) model:
Iteration 0: log likelihood = -1341968.9
Iteration 1: log likelihood = -1341967.5
Iteration 2: log likelihood = -1341967.5
Iteration 0: log likelihood = -504693.72
Iteration 1: log likelihood = -35614.007
Iteration 2: log likelihood = -35604.55
Iteration 3: log likelihood = -35604.545
Iteration 4: log likelihood = -35604.545
Iteration 0: log likelihood = -35604.545
Iteration 1: log likelihood = -35595.175
Iteration 2: log likelihood = -35595.145
Iteration 3: log likelihood = -35595.145
Fitting full model:
Iteration 0: log likelihood = -81145.913
Iteration 1: log likelihood = -49940.372 (not concave)
Iteration 2: log likelihood = -42786.562 (not concave)
Iteration 3: log likelihood = -35793.307
Iteration 4: log likelihood = -33256.88
Iteration 5: log likelihood = -33190.785
Iteration 6: log likelihood = -33150.666
Iteration 7: log likelihood = -33150.622
Iteration 8: log likelihood = -33150.622
Random-effects negative binomial regression Number of obs = 7522
Group variable: fi Number of groups = 1873
Random effects u_i ~ Beta Obs per group: min = 1
avg = 4.0
max = 5
Wald chi2(2) = 7.29
Log likelihood = -33150.622 Prob > chi2 = 0.0261
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
train | IRR Std. Err. z P>|z| [95% Conf. Interval]
-------------+----------------------------------------------------------------
asso | .8803461 .0551126 -2.04 0.042 .7786914 .9952712
pub | .9029852 .0380889 -2.42 0.016 .8313349 .9808108
-------------+----------------------------------------------------------------
/ln_r | -.8268984 .0334362 -.8924322 -.7613647
/ln_s | .7346747 .0714634 .5946091 .8747404
-------------+----------------------------------------------------------------
r | .4374038 .0146251 .4096582 .4670286
s | 2.084804 .1489872 1.812322 2.398253
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Likelihood-ratio test vs. pooled: chibar2(01) = 4889.04 Prob>=chibar2 = 0.000
.
--- On Wed, 12/15/10, Mary E. Mackesy-Amiti <mmamiti@uic.edu> wrote:
> From: Mary E. Mackesy-Amiti <mmamiti@uic.edu>
> Subject: Re: st: xtnbreg, nbreg, and tests of assumptions
> To: statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu
> Date: Wednesday, December 15, 2010, 7:03 PM
> I think you meant to say that your
> *dependent* variable is count with
> overdispersion, and your *independent* variable is time
> invariant.
> Independent variables predict dependent variables.
>
> Please post the -xtnbreg- command you used and the results
> you find
> questionable.
>
>
> On 12/15/2010 7:30 AM, Dalhia wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I am trying to figure out whether I should use nbreg
> (with
> > correction for autocorrelation and heteroskedasticity)
> or xtnbreg (with
> > random effects)? My independent variable is count with
> significant overdispersion, and I have panel data (cross
> sectional time series). One of my main dependent variables
> is time invariant, and therefore I cannot use xtnbreg fixed
> effects. xtnbreg random effects is giving me some funny
> results that are hard to believe, but how should I decide
> which one I should be using (xtnbreg or nbreg)? Also, are
> there tests to check if the assumptions of these models are
> satisfied in my data?
> >
> > Finally, I have two independent variables,
> predicted by the same dependent variables. But I can't find
> a version of SUR appropriate for negative binomial. I am not
> really interested in cross-equation testing. If I don't do a
> seemingly unrelated regression, does that bias the
> coefficients or does it produce inefficient
> > coefficients.
> >
> > Thanks so much. I really appreciate your help.
> > Dalhia
> >
> > --- On Wed, 12/15/10, Maarten buis<maartenbuis@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
> >
> > From: Maarten buis<maartenbuis@yahoo.co.uk>
> > Subject: Re: st: Difference between xtlogit,
> xtmelogit, gllamm
> > To: statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu
> > Date: Wednesday, December 15, 2010, 10:28 AM
> >
> > --- On Wed, 15/12/10, Rajaram Subramanian Potty
> wrote:
> >> I have event history data and this data has been
> converted
> >> into discrete time to fit discrete time hazard
> model.
> >> Now, I want to fit a multilevel model. But there
> are: three
> >> different proceudres such as xtlogit, xtmelogit
> and gllamm.
> >> I want to know which procedure is more appropriate
> for
> >> analysing the discrete time data.
> > All three will do for a basic multilevel model for the
> odds
> > (not the hazard) of survival. If you want to model a
> > multilevel model for the hazard of survival you can
> use
> > -gllamm- with the cll link function. The difference
> between
> > -xtlogit- and -xtmelogit- is that the latter can
> accomodate
> > more complex multilevel structures.
> >
> > Hope this helps,
> > Maarten
> >
> > --------------------------
> > 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/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *
> > * 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/
> >
> >
>
> --
> Mary Ellen Mackesy-Amiti, Ph.D.
> Research Assistant Professor
> Community Outreach Intervention Projects (COIP)
> School of Public Health m/c 923
> Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics
> University of Illinois at Chicago
> ph. 312-355-4892
> fax: 312-996-1450
>
> *
> * 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/
>
*
* 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/