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: RE: RE: problem running mfx after glm
From
Richard Williams <[email protected]>
To
[email protected]
Subject
Re: st: RE: RE: problem running mfx after glm
Date
Mon, 15 Aug 2011 19:25:00 -0500
At 06:04 PM 8/15/2011, Marlis Gonzalez Fernandez wrote:
I am trying to analyze a new variable (categorical 5 levels) still
accounting for marginal effects since audcompCombdiv100 is a
proportion so I wrote:
glm audcompCombdiv100 Age Gender0Male1Female DWIVolume
i.Discharge_Location, family(binomial) link(logit) robust
mfx, at(mean)
-default predict() is unsuitable for marginal-effect calculation
-r(119);
Is the problem the use of -i.var-?
mfx doesn't like the i. notation. You could compute the dummies
yourself, but mfx would not be smart enough to know that the dummies
are all inter-related, e.g. if one dummy = 1 the others all have to
equal 0. Use margins instead:
margins, dydx(*) atmeans
Also, my own bias would be to drop the -atmeans- option and use the
default -asobserved- instead.
-------------------------------------------
Richard Williams, Notre Dame Dept of Sociology
OFFICE: (574)631-6668, (574)631-6463
HOME: (574)289-5227
EMAIL: [email protected]
WWW: http://www.nd.edu/~rwilliam
*
* 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/