# Getting the (Stata) margins from fractional regression (=glm with family quasibinomial) for an ordinal variable in R

I first found this really nice Stata video on fractional regression (the dependent variable is a proportion including 0 and 1). I am especially interested in how he applies the margin approach to measure the effect of a dummy variable (2:32 - 2:58).

I also found this really nice blog on fractional regression, and its counterparts in R, which shows that fractional regression is simply a glm with family quasibinomial. So far, so great!

Now the only thing that this blog does not explain, is how to apply the margins function from Stata, to the R approaches listed. I am especially interested in the quasibinomial.

I found this margins package for R, but it does not really mention either dummies, factors, ordinal or categorical variables. If someone could show me how to utilise this package, to get the marginal effect of a dummy/ordinal variable that would be amazing.

• What exactly do you want to find out using marginal effects? The emmeans package is popular and quite comprehensive to calculate and compare marginal effects. But without more specific information, it's difficult to say more. Apr 15 at 8:02
• @COOLSerdash Thank you for your comment. I am not super sure how to make it clearer than the video fragment. Essentially, I am just looking for a clear way to explain the interpretation of a dummy variable or ordinal variable in a glm regression. I am going through the margins package at the moment, and I think maybe it can be achieved by evaluating the dummy at 1 and 0 with at and similarly for an ordinal variable. Maybe I was a little bit too quick with posting this question. But if I figure it out, I will add an answer myself. If I cannot, I will check emmeans as well.
– Tom
Apr 15 at 8:11

To illustrate how to calculate the marginal effect of a categorical variable, I'll use the sprogram data that is mentioned in the video from Stata. Here is the output from Stata including the marginal effect of summer:

fracreg logit prate i.summer pdonations freemeals

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|               Robust
prate |      Coef.   Std. Err.      z    P>|z|     [95% Conf. Interval]
-------------+----------------------------------------------------------------
summer |
yes  |    .579492   .0517463    11.20   0.000     .4780711     .680913
pdonations |   .0415092   .0108759     3.82   0.000     .0201928    .0628257
freemeals |  -.5200508   .0912252    -5.70   0.000    -.6988489   -.3412526
_cons |   1.203022   .0719935    16.71   0.000     1.061917    1.344126
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

margins r.summer

--------------------------------------------------------------
|            Delta-method
|   Contrast   Std. Err.     [95% Conf. Interval]
-------------+------------------------------------------------
summer |
(yes vs no)  |   .0930492   .0089097      .0755864    .1105119
--------------------------------------------------------------


Here is the replication in R:

library(margins)
library(sandwich)
library(lmtest)

# The model
mod <- glm(prate~summer + freemeals + pdonations, data = dat, family = quasibinomial())


To replicate Stata's standard errors (almost), we need to use robust standard errors:

print(coeftest(mod, vcov = vcovHC(mod, type = "HC1")), digits = 6)

Estimate Std. Error  z value   Pr(>|z|)
(Intercept)  1.2030216  0.0721018 16.68504 < 2.22e-16 ***
summeryes    0.5794920  0.0518241 11.18190 < 2.22e-16 ***
freemeals   -0.5200508  0.0913621 -5.69219 1.2542e-08 ***
pdonations   0.0415092  0.0108923  3.81089 0.00013847 ***


Finally, we use margins together with robust standard errors for the marginal effect of summer:

res <- margins(mod, variable = "summer", type = "response", vcov = vcovHC(mod, type = "HC1"))

summary(res)

factor    AME     SE       z      p  lower  upper
summeryes 0.0930 0.0089 10.4488 0.0000 0.0756 0.1105


The results are virutally identical.

• Thank you for taking the time! I really appreciate it!
– Tom
Apr 15 at 9:20
• @Tom No problem. You've answered your question practically yourself. Apr 15 at 9:25

You can use the margins package to evaluate the effect of a dummy or ordinal variable.

# Dummy variable

library(haven) # foreign::read.dta does not work for some reason.

# code from https://m-clark.github.io/posts/2019-08-20-fractional-regression/
model_quasi = glm(
prate ~ mrate + ltotemp + age + sole,
data = d,
family = quasibinomial
)
(m <- margins(model_quasi))
summary(m)

factor     AME     SE        z      p   lower   upper
age  0.0044 0.0004  12.2908 0.0000  0.0037  0.0051
ltotemp -0.0264 0.0017 -15.5742 0.0000 -0.0297 -0.0230
mrate  0.1473 0.0086  17.0834 0.0000  0.1304  0.1642
sole  0.0211 0.0061   3.4310 0.0006  0.0090  0.0331


If we now compare the coefficient of the R output to the coefficient of the Stata output, we see that it is almost identical: Stata code:

use https://www.stata-press.com/data/r16/401k
fracreg logit prate mrate c.ltotemp c.age i.sole
margins r.sole


# Ordinal variable

d$$cutage <- cut(d$$age, c(0,10,20,30, 100), right=FALSE)
model_quasi = glm(
prate ~ mrate + ltotemp + cutage + sole,
data = d,
family = quasibinomial
)
(m <- margins(model_quasi))
summary(m)

factor     AME     SE        z      p   lower   upper
cutage[10,20)  0.0582 0.0068   8.5954 0.0000  0.0449  0.0715
cutage[20,30)  0.0922 0.0082  11.2253 0.0000  0.0761  0.1083
cutage[30,100)  0.0861 0.0103   8.3495 0.0000  0.0659  0.1064
ltotemp -0.0258 0.0017 -15.3155 0.0000 -0.0291 -0.0225
mrate  0.1490 0.0086  17.2847 0.0000  0.1321  0.1658
sole  0.0206 0.0061   3.3488 0.0008  0.0085  0.0326


In Stata:

egen cutage = cut(age), at(0,10,20,30,100)
fracreg logit prate mrate c.ltotemp i.cutage i.sole

margin r.cutage

Contrasts of predictive margins                 Number of obs     =      4,075
Model VCE    : Robust

Expression   : Conditional mean of prate, predict()

------------------------------------------------
|         df        chi2     P>chi2
-------------+----------------------------------
cutage |
(10 vs 0)  |          1       85.73     0.0000
(20 vs 0)  |          1      163.36     0.0000
(30 vs 0)  |          1       69.09     0.0000
Joint  |          3      226.53     0.0000
------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------
|            Delta-method
|   Contrast   Std. Err.     [95% Conf. Interval]
-------------+------------------------------------------------
cutage |
(10 vs 0)  |    .058218   .0062878      .0458941    .0705418
(20 vs 0)  |   .0922323   .0072163      .0780886     .106376
(30 vs 0)  |   .0861435   .0103634      .0658316    .1064554
--------------------------------------------------------------