Re: st: another question on the interpretation of rho and atanhrho

["David Roodman (droodman@cgdev.org)" <DRoodman@cgdev.org>]

-0.244 is not tanh(-2.489), so there must be something wrong with this example.
Stipulating a 10% significance level, 2 is more correct.
--David

From	  "Laura R." <laura.roh@googlemail.com>
To	  statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu
Subject	  Re: st: another question on the interpretation of rho and atanhrho
Date	  Mon, 7 May 2012 20:47:32 +0200
 Dear Maarten,

thanks for the quick response.

So in one of my estimations, atanhrho is -2.489 and rho is -0.244, but
the p-value of atanhrho is > 0.100, which means not significant based
on at least 10%-significance. Now which of the 2 interpretations are
correct:

(1) "persons who are less likely to do/have X, are more likely to
do/have (more of) Y, because the error terms are correlated, shown by
a negative rho and atanhrho"

or

(2) "no significant correlation between the error terms because for
atanrho p>0.100, so no result regarding the dependent variables
(despite that rho and atanrho not equal to 0.000)"


Thinking about interpreting atanrho, not rho, came from Roodman's
(2009) working paper, p. 26, but maybe I missunderstood it.
http://www.cgdev.org/files/1421516_file_Roodman_cmp_FINAL.pdf

LR

*
*   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/