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: Accounting for clusters with a log-binomial model
From
Nicole Basta <[email protected]>
To
statalist <[email protected]>
Subject
st: Accounting for clusters with a log-binomial model
Date
Fri, 19 Aug 2011 15:40:44 -0700
Hello STATA listers,
For my analysis, I would like to use a log-binomial model to estimate
the Relative Risk and 95% CI for the association between several
potential risk factors (for this example, "RISKFACTOR1") and my
outcome variable ("OUTCOME1").
The data were collected from participants in a cross-sectional,
cluster-randomized survey of households (cluster variable "HHID"), so
I will need to account for clustering in my analysis.
My question is: What is the difference between how STATA accounts for
clustering in the following two models?
MODEL 1:
glm OUTCOME1 RISKFACTOR1, fam(bin) link(log) eform vce(cluster HHID)
MODEL 2:
svyset HHID
svy: glm OUTCOME1 RISKFACTOR1, fam(bin) link(log) eform
The output gives slightly different estimates of the SEs and the CIs.
Model 1 gives "Robust Standard Errors" and Model 2 gives "Linearlized
Standard Errors."
I'm wondering if that is the only difference between these two models,
and if one estimate of the SEs is more appropriate than the other for
a cluster-randomized, cross-sectional survey.
I would appreciate any insight that anyone on the list has.
Nicole
*
* 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/