Notice: On April 23, 2014, Statalist moved from an email list to a forum, based at statalist.org.
From | Nick Cox <njcoxstata@gmail.com> |
To | statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu |
Subject | Re: st: Fw: influential observations |
Date | Tue, 12 Apr 2011 09:58:55 +0100 |
Do Anscombe residuals come out normal with non-normal families? I am away from any pertinent literature. On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 8:51 AM, Nick Cox <njcoxstata@gmail.com> wrote: > I don't think it is a good idea to expect a firm statistical answer > based on this information. > > 1. Isn't there science that will throw light on this question for you? > For example, in my field, the Amazon is often an influential > observationr, as are other very big rivers. But throwing them out just > because they might make modelling awkward would usually be very > strange science. They deserve their votes. Your field, whatever it is, > wil presumably have its own arguments and issues. > > 2. When there are influential observations in a -glm-, considering a > different link, e.g. reciprocal, is often a good way forward. > > 3. There are many situations in which one predictor that is > insignificant at conventional levels deserves its place in a model if > it has a logical role. > > 4. I don't see why you expect normally distributed residuals when the > family is gamma!!! I think that overall plots of residual vs fitted, > observed vs fitted, variance of residual vs fitted, etc., are worth > more attention than the marginal distribution. > > Nick > > On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 6:17 AM, Arti Pandey <rtpandey@yahoo.com> wrote: >> Hello >> A belated thank you to Maarten Buis and David Greenberg for suggestions to my >> previous query. >> I decided to go with -glm- for my model and have been trying to understand the >> different procedures for checking the model >> The anscombe residuals and deviance are normally distributed, but there are >> three influential observations based upon cooksd. >> On removing these observations, the BIC rises by 10, and one of the predictors >> also becomes insignificant. >> Is the model fitting because of these influential observations now and therefore >> >> not correct? >> I have continuous response data and used gamma distribution with log link. >> Any recommendations for information on model checking after glm are also >> appreciated, the book "glm >> >> and extensions" by Hardin and Hilbe is out of my reach, unless an electronic >> copy is available. > * * 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/