Bookmark and Share

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/


© Copyright 1996–2018 StataCorp LLC   |   Terms of use   |   Privacy   |   Contact us   |   Site index