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: Predicted GLLAMM probs don't check out
From
David Crow <[email protected]>
To
[email protected]
Subject
st: Predicted GLLAMM probs don't check out
Date
Thu, 17 May 2012 19:17:40 -0500
Dear All-
I'm having a slight problem with predicted probabilities in GLLAMM: the
probabilities predicted after estimation with the "mu" option don't equal
the probabilities obtained by suitable transformations of the score function
obtained with the "linpred" option.
First, I estimate the following multi-level logit model:
gllamm amlo pri pan prd news wave, i(folio) family(binomial) link(logit)
trace
Then, I obtain the linear predictor (with random effects) and predicted
probabilities with:
gllapred pr1, mu
gllapred lp1, linpred
As a check, I estimate probabilities by the inverse logit transformation of
the score function (linear predictor including random effects):
gen p1 = exp(lp1) / (1+exp(lp1))
The problem is that the probabilities obtained with the inverse logit (p1)
don't match the probabilities predicted directly by gllapred (pr1).
list amlo pr1 p1
pr1 p1 1 .278 .204
2 .006 .001
3 .003 .001
4 .240 .157
&c.
To check that the score functions are OK, I recovered the linear predictor
without random effects (using the "xb" option) and the random effects (using
the "u" option) and added the two:
gllapred xb1, xb
gllapred re1, u
gen linpred1 = xb1+re1m1
This does check out (i.e., linpred1 = lp1).
The same problem obtains with predicted probabilities for probit models
using gllamm. First, I estimate the same model as above with the probit
link:
gllamm amlo pri pan prd news wave, i(folio) family(binomial) link(probit)
trace
Also as above, I use the "mu" and "linpred" options to recover the predicted
probabilities and score function (linear predictor including random
effects).
gllapred pr2, mu
gllapred lp2, linpred
Then, I carry out the inverse probit transformation on the linear predictor
to check these probabilities against those predicted with "mu".
gen p2 = normal(lp2)
Again, though, the probabilities don't match up:
list amlo pr2 p2 in 1/10
pr2 p2
1 .289 .226
2 .005 .000
3 .002 .000
4 .247 .175
Any idea why the probabilities differ from each other? Which of the two
probabilities should I believe, or should I believe neither?
Many thanks,
David
--
Web site for México, las Américas y el Mundo:
http://mexicoyelmundo.cide.edu/
====================================
David Crow, Ph.D.
Profesor-Investigador/Assistant Professor
División de Estudios Internacionales
Carretera México-Toluca 3655
Col. Lomas de Santa Fe 01210 México, D.F.
Tel.: 5727-9800, ext. 2152
Fax: 5727-9872
====================================
Conmutador: 5727-98-00 Lada sin costo: 01 800 021 2433 (CIDE) |©
*
* 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/