Timeline for Poisson regression with strictly positive CONTINUOUS dependent variable
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 28, 2020 at 14:13 | comment | added | Billy | Of course! Best of luck on the submission! | |
| Dec 28, 2020 at 1:52 | comment | added | lovestacksflow | Sure, that was exactly my main point of concer: reviewrs being so used to OLS. It's a great idea to run regression diagnostic on OLS as a proof, which I hadn't thought of! Thanks a lot! | |
| Dec 28, 2020 at 0:29 | comment | added | Billy | Definitely seems like OLS is a misspecification then. I agree that the range restriction in the outcome variable is probably the reason for that. As a sanity check, you may want to consider checking the assumptions of both models. Should be that the data fit nicely with the Poisson model but have non-normal and heteroscedastic residuals for the OLS model. Just thinking about what might happen if a reviewer who's used to OLS asks why something else is reported | |
| Dec 27, 2020 at 13:23 | comment | added | lovestacksflow | Thanks for the answer. In my case, I actually started my analysis using poisson, and just wanted to check OLS as a robustness measure, but out of three relationships, only one remained significant (sample size ~ 15700). I then calculated the residual sum of squared and noticed a huge difference (428 for OLS and 125 for poisson), leading me to investigate this more. I think the severe restriction (most R&D intensity values are really below 1.3) is the main cause. | |
| Dec 27, 2020 at 13:19 | vote | accept | lovestacksflow | ||
| Dec 27, 2020 at 4:07 | history | answered | Billy | CC BY-SA 4.0 |