Re: st: Mhbounds v.s. rbounds in stata

[William Buchanan <william@williambuchanan.net>]

Hi Wen,

It is unlikely that resubmitting the same question will yield any substantively different results from what you've already experienced. The first answer most would likely provide, is to read the Statalist FAQ as users are required to do prior to posting to the Statalist.  -psmatch2- is a user written command which can be installed from ssc.  Posters are asked to identify where user-written packages come from for several reasons (not limited to, but including determining whether the version said person is using is the most updated version of the package).  Furthermore, the FAQ is explicit about showing your exact syntax and Stata's exact output.  There's good reasoning for this and it helps provide other users with information that could be important to answering your question and giving you the help that you need.

HTH,
Billy



On Feb 25, 2013, at 8:23 AM, Wen Ci <ivwen.ci@gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear readers,
> I employed the mhbounds after psmatch2. My outcome variable and treatment variable are all binary variables and I think the mhbounds are a better choice compared to rbounds.
> However the mhbounds produce all insignificant results even when gamm=1, which is inconsistent with my matching results.
> I also tried the rbounds, which produce normal results for my matching.
> Is it because the mhbounds are designed for the matching without replacement? My matching is completed with replacement due to the sample size limitation.
> Thank you for your answer.
> Best,
> 
> Wen
> *
> *   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/