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: interpreting coefficients in growth equation
From
Charles Koss <[email protected]>
To
[email protected]
Subject
Re: st: interpreting coefficients in growth equation
Date
Sun, 27 Mar 2011 06:33:37 -0500
Sorry, my eyes did not see the negative sign. In this way, on average,
a unit change in higher initial values of BMI leads to lower levels of
growth. Now, i am intrigued. Basically, you are regressing the growth
rate by the previous level (you called it present), logincome, and
age. is it logincome and age measured at the previous level (you
called it present) or current period ?
Charles
--
Charles Koss
http://charlesonnet.blogspot.com
On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 4:44 AM, D-Ta <[email protected]> wrote:
> b1 = -0.33, i.e. A higher initial level of BMI should lead to lower growth
> rates, isnt it?
>
>
> Am 26.03.2011 20:07, schrieb Charles Koss:
>>
>> on average, an additional year changes BMI_growth by 0.11, b2 might be
>> an elasticity (1% change in logincome causes 0.14% in BMI_growth ).
>> b1, a unit change from the average present level of BMI changes the
>> BMI_growth by 0.33; in other words, increases the growth of BMI. So, i
>> think you may have divergence rather than convergence.
>>
>> Does it make sense? otherwise, provide more details about the dataset.
>>
> *
> * 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/