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: IV estimation in a negative binomial framework
From
Arka Roy Chaudhuri <[email protected]>
To
[email protected]
Subject
Re: st: IV estimation in a negative binomial framework
Date
Fri, 12 Aug 2011 14:19:30 -0700
I am sorry- I should have been more exact. I meant to say that-qvf-
gives lowers standard errors than -ivpois- in my regression framework.
So I was confused and wanted to know if this was due to some
inherent theoretical differences between the two routines.Thanks
Arka
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Austin Nichols <[email protected]> wrote:
> Arka Roy Chaudhuri <[email protected]>:
> What do you mean by "in my case qvf seems to perform better than
> ivpois" exactly? Are you running a simulation with a known effect?
> -qvf- is for measurement error only, but my simulations prefer -ivpois-
> for every type of endogeneity, including measurement error.
> Note that -gmm- supplants -ivpois- if you are running modern Stata.
>
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 4:31 PM, Arka Roy Chaudhuri <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I had a question about -ivpois- vs -qvf-.Is there any reason for
>> -ivpois- to be theoretically better than -qvf-? I looked at the
>> example in the ivpois help file which shows that ivpois performs
>> better than qvf but in my case qvf seems to perform better than
>> ivpois. So I was wondering if there are any theoretical reasons for
>> why ivpois is better than qvf and the essential differences between
>> the two.
> *
> * 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/