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: ordered logistic regression with endogenous variable
From
Joerg Luedicke <[email protected]>
To
[email protected]
Subject
Re: st: ordered logistic regression with endogenous variable
Date
Thu, 11 Oct 2012 10:13:04 -0500
Dear Justina,
I would not consider this off-topic as it seems directly related to
the original posting and follow-up posts by you and Anat. And after
all, Statalist is rather a discussion forum than a help line which
includes the possibility of receiving unsolicited advice.
Joerg
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 9:53 AM, Justina Fischer <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dear Joerg,
>
> thanks for providing me with your interesting comments on my research approach.
>
> However, I would (and many others on this list, I presume) appreciate if you could from now on post such off-topic comments to me in private.
>
> Best regards
>
> Justina
> -------- Original-Nachricht --------
>> Datum: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 09:24:35 -0500
>> Von: Joerg Luedicke <[email protected]>
>> An: [email protected]
>> Betreff: Re: st: ordered logistic regression with endogenous variable
>
>> On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 8:48 AM, Justina Fischer <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>> > Whether or not effect size is meaningful depends on the research
>> question; I am sure your supervisor will agree with me on that statement.
>> > In many of my publications on happiness (LFS), observing an effect or
>> not was the most important question, whereas magnitude played only a minor
>> role for the referees.
>>
>> I find it hard to imagine a situation in the context of applied
>> research with real data where effect sizes would not be important. If
>> the importance of inspecting effect sizes (and related stuff like the
>> form of the effect etc.) would depend on a research question, then
>> perhaps there is something wrong with the research question itself.
>> You can always find 'significant' effects which are meaningless in
>> practice. It is probably also problematic to focus on what reviewers
>> may or may not want to see. Such issues are discussed in this
>> interesting article from Gerd Gigerenzer:
>>
>> http://library.mpib-berlin.mpg.de/ft/gg/GG_Mindless_2004.pdf
>>
>> Joerg
>> *
>> * For searches and help try:
>> * http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search
>> * http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/resources/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/faqs/resources/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/faqs/resources/statalist-faq/
* http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/