Re: st: Box-Tidwell Test

[Nick Cox <njcoxstata@gmail.com>]

Sorry, but this is another version of the same question and the answer  
is the same too. Lowess can't help you with dummies. What you can  
write on linearity is that the issue does not bite or even arise with  
your choice of predictors.

(I don't know what there is to 'try' in my previous, which was a one- 
sentence demonstration of the fallacy you have swallowed.)

Nick

On 26 Apr 2011, at 12:57, lisenger@students.mail.uni-mannheim.de wrote:

> Hi
>
>
> Ok I will try this. But I have another questions regarding testing  
> the linearity assumption. Another way to check is the Locally  
> Weigthed Scatterplot Smoothed (lowess) and the literature says that  
> graphs with u- shaped and not continues shapes contravene the  
> assumption.
>
> I tried the test with:
> lowess wabsunion themen, jitter(2) bwidth(.2)
>
> and got as a result, a straight line, with some slope. It is for  
> sure not s-shaped form as it is supposed to be, yet it is not u- 
> shaped and continuous. So is it ok to write that the linearity  
> assumption is ok? I know the case is special as I have 2 dummy  
> variables with values (0-1), so its seems logical not to have a s- 
> shaped graph, but I have to write something about linearity.
>
> I am very sorry, i know my questions must seem totally stupid but  
> this is the first time I use STATA and regression
*
*   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/