New answers tagged

1

Since your outcome is binary and you are using OLS, you are in essence running a Linear Probability Model. Since your predictor is also binary, OLS is estimating two conditional probabilites here: $P(\text{Divorce}=1|\text{OneParent}=0) = \beta_0 = 0.238$ $P(\text{Divorce}=1|\text{OneParent}=1) = \beta_0 + \beta_1 = 0.238 + 0.095 = 0.333$ Your $t$-...


1

If the problem is really the size of the data set, reduce it and try again, so you can make sure if that's the reason or not. If that's the reason, maybe you can compute first a correlation matrix, showing the correlations between all pairs of variables. You might find that some of them are extremely correlated, in which case you don't need all, so you can ...


2

You are correct that your Model 2 makes the most sense if you wish to standardize your continuous predictor C. The confusion comes from what the intercept and the coefficient for the binary predictor B mean in Model 0 versus Model 2. I assume that Stata is using treatment coding of the predictors, and that by standardizing C you mean subtracting its mean and ...


0

Your interpretation is correct. For the "common language" variable, having a common language reduces the hazard to where it is 0.745 times the hazard that it would be given everything else was the same but there was no common language. The hazard measures the probability of the trade relationship ending in the near future after time t given there ...


0

Yes you can use the equation that you wrote down. Of course, for the followup regressor you need the exogeneity given for consistent estimation. with respect to the calculation in stata @Fcold provided the approach I would take as well.


0

Regardless of the model used, if you are using factor notation, that is straightforward. say: reg y x margins, dydx(x) reg y x z c.x#c.z margins, dydx(x) they both will produce the marginal effect of x on y, as the one you describe.


0

As this question has so many views and ranks highly in google search, I would like to add to the excellent answer before (+1) that one has to be careful about actually interpreting the effects as within effects. Probably the most common empirical mistake in applied work. There is a very nice paper on this (not mine): Mummolo, J., & Peterson, E. (2018). ...


1

This is in my view off-topic on CV -- please see advice on software-related questions in the Help Center -- but while I am waiting to see if others also vote that way I find the question unclear in any case. The following won't fit well in a comment. Here is a shorter equivalent of your code, and I set the seed for reproducibility. clear set seed 1234 set ...


1

Alright, So it took some time to find an official answer for this question. Or at least as official as possible, given my current access to bibliographic material. So, based on Henderson and Parmeter (2015) section 8.1.2. the correct specification for a nonparametric regression with mixed data is derived as follows: Assume you are interested in estimating a ...


Top 50 recent answers are included