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]
st: gllamm option geqs
From
"Liberini, Federica" <[email protected]>
To
<[email protected]>
Subject
st: gllamm option geqs
Date
Tue, 31 May 2011 17:48:11 +0100
I have a question on gllamm.
Say a have a simple random parameter model of the form
y_it = c + beta_i x_it + u_it
with
beta_i = b + a z_i + v_i
where z_i is a time-invariant dummy for individual i.
What would be the difference between
1. generating the interaction x_it*z_i and estimating the model with
gllamm specifying just "eqs eq1: x_it" before the gllamm command, and
then "nfr(eq1)" among the gllamm options and the interaction term among
the regressors
and
2. specifying "geqs geq1: x_it z_i" before the gllamm command and then
just the gllamm command with nfr(geq1) but no interaction term among
regressors?
Rabe-Hesketh and Skrondal have an example in their book of a similar
model (in paragraph 4.9), but they estimate it with xtmixed and using
the interactions following the reduced form of their model. I can't use
xtmixed, as I am estimating a random-coefficient dynamic panel probit.
But I was just wondering whether the geqs is appropriate (as it seems
from its definition).
Many thanks,
Best
Federica
*
* 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/