Dear all,
I am running a panel regression with individual fixed effects. When using the -xtreg, fe- command, I get very low R2 (both for within, between and overall, all ranging from 0.000 to 0.10)
However, on the much quoted page https://www.princeton.edu/~otorres/Panel101.pdf that when reporting the Rsquared for fixed effects models, the R2 from - areg, absorb(id) - is preferred to the R2 obtained from -xtreg, fe-. Is this indeed the case, and if so, why? Indeed, with -areg, absorb(id)- I get an adjusted R2 that is much more sensible (0.63), whilst indeed all the coefficients remain the same, all standard errors have changed, and thus I am a bit confused as to whether it is appropriate to report the R2 from this regression.
Many thanks in advance.
Related Posts with R2 -xtreg, fe- vs R2 -areg, absorb(id)
Rare event models with panel dataDear Statalist users, I am analysing the probability of doctors to accept a clinical job offer usi…
Sobel test or bootstrapping for testing mediationDear everyone, I am testing a mediating model and after running my multiple fixed effects regressio…
Identifying 'nearest neighbours' without using teffectsHi, I have data for almost 7,000 organisations. I want to use say, 6 variables, to identify the 60…
create analytical/inverse variance weights for a variableDear all, I create a new topic here since my last topic is a bit unclear. I know how to tabulate t…
PPML Country Pair Fixed EffectsHi All, I am trying to run a bilateral trade gravity model using PPML and trying to control for cou…
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 Response to R2 -xtreg, fe- vs R2 -areg, absorb(id)
Post a Comment