Hello,
I have a problem with interpreting the results of my binomial logistic regression.
I am investigating the relationship between the perceived corruption of members of parliament (none, some of them, most of them, all of them) and satisfaction with democracy (coded as dummy with 1 = satisfied) with the help of the logit command.
When I run the analysis without control variables perceived corruption is statistically significant for the levels most of them and all of them at p<0.05 (none is reference). However, after I introduce my control variables (proven to be relatively good predictors of satisfaction with democracy using lrtest as well as by the theory), all levels of perceived corruption, my variable of interest and most of the levels of my control variables are statistically insignificant.
I am now wondering how to interpret these results.
Does it mean that considering some, most of them or all of parliament's members to be corrupt does not significantly impact a respondents chance to be satisfied with democracy compared to those in the reference category “None”?
This is my output:
. logit sat_dem1 i.corrupt_mp winner anc ib3.well ib3.economy ib4.gov_economy ib4.gov_emp ib4.gov_
> crime ib3.trust
note: 8.corrupt_mp != 0 predicts success perfectly
8.corrupt_mp dropped and 2 obs not used
note: 8.economy != 0 predicts failure perfectly
8.economy dropped and 2 obs not used
Iteration 0: log likelihood = -1242.3333
Iteration 1: log likelihood = -1131.5192
Iteration 2: log likelihood = -1131.02
Iteration 3: log likelihood = -1130.9368
Iteration 4: log likelihood = -1130.9235
Iteration 5: log likelihood = -1130.9204
Iteration 6: log likelihood = -1130.9197
Iteration 7: log likelihood = -1130.9196
Iteration 8: log likelihood = -1130.9195
Logistic regression Number of obs = 1,817
LR chi2(36) = 222.83
Prob > chi2 = 0.0000
Log likelihood = -1130.9195 Pseudo R2 = 0.0897
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
sat_dem1 | Coef. Std. Err. z P>|z| [95% Conf. Interval]
--------------------------------+----------------------------------------------------------------
corrupt_mp |
1. Some of them | .1375941 .2266695 0.61 0.544 -.3066698 .5818581
2. Most of them | -.123168 .2379548 -0.52 0.605 -.5895508 .3432149
3. All of them | -.1250717 .2497171 -0.50 0.616 -.6145081 .3643648
8. Refused | 0 (empty)
9. Don't know/ Haven’t heard | .3542393 .2941798 1.20 0.229 -.2223425 .930821
|
winner | .2195418 .124617 1.76 0.078 -.0247029 .4637866
anc | .3254136 .1357487 2.40 0.017 .059351 .5914761
|
wellbeing |
1. Very Bad | -.2953002 .1774831 -1.66 0.096 -.6431606 .0525602
2. Fairly Bad | .0878332 .1808186 0.49 0.627 -.2665648 .4422311
4. Fairly Good | .2964598 .172577 1.72 0.086 -.0417849 .6347045
5. Very good | .1039665 .2075327 0.50 0.616 -.3027901 .510723
9. Don't know | .3214488 .73491 0.44 0.662 -1.118948 1.761846
|
economy |
Very Bad | -.42181 .185135 -2.28 0.023 -.7846679 -.058952
Fairly Bad | -.2583114 .1944428 -1.33 0.184 -.6394124 .1227895
Fairly Good | .1408969 .211429 0.67 0.505 -.2734964 .5552901
Very good | .1239676 .2494882 0.50 0.619 -.3650203 .6129556
Refused | 0 (empty)
Don't know | -.8153346 .4969947 -1.64 0.101 -1.789426 .1587571
|
gov_economy |
1. Very Badly | -.6374424 .2485057 -2.57 0.010 -1.124505 -.1503801
2. Fairly Badly | -.4355983 .2539268 -1.72 0.086 -.9332857 .0620891
3. Fairly Well | -.1935279 .2466126 -0.78 0.433 -.6768797 .289824
8. Refused | 13.79155 1031.079 0.01 0.989 -2007.087 2034.67
9. Don't know / Haven’t hear.. | -.852639 .3284448 -2.60 0.009 -1.496379 -.208899
|
gov_emp |
1. Very Badly | -.1599517 .3000783 -0.53 0.594 -.7480943 .4281909
2. Fairly Badly | -.2164558 .3088984 -0.70 0.483 -.8218855 .388974
3. Fairly Well | -.144183 .3084507 -0.47 0.640 -.7487353 .4603692
8. Refused | -28.50171 1230.658 -0.02 0.982 -2440.546 2383.543
9. Don't know / Haven’t hear.. | .8198749 .555076 1.48 0.140 -.2680541 1.907804
|
gov_crime |
1. Very Badly | .2947696 .2524195 1.17 0.243 -.1999635 .7895027
2. Fairly Badly | .2154838 .2660535 0.81 0.418 -.3059715 .736939
3. Fairly Well | .6979382 .2648499 2.64 0.008 .1788419 1.217034
8. Refused | 14.45072 671.8568 0.02 0.983 -1302.364 1331.266
9. Don't know / Haven’t hear.. | .12304 .5217258 0.24 0.814 -.8995237 1.145604
|
trust |
0. Not at all | -.7140299 .1679543 -4.25 0.000 -1.043214 -.3848454
1. Just a little | -.2366771 .1615504 -1.47 0.143 -.55331 .0799557
2. Somewhat | -.1290299 .178848 -0.72 0.471 -.4795655 .2215057
8. Refused | -.2341579 1.489882 -0.16 0.875 -3.154274 2.685958
9. Don’t know/Haven’t heard .. | -.3406794 .3233705 -1.05 0.292 -.974474 .2931151
|
_cons | .2401685 .4511124 0.53 0.594 -.6439957 1.124333
Related Posts with How do I interpret insignificant levels of categorical predictors in binomial logistic regression?
Relative risk and the risk differenceHi, I try to estimate the treatment effect in an RCT using the xtlogit command as I have panel data.…
Delete whole rowI have discovered that I have duplicates for a whole row (same person).. how do I delete the rows wi…
Latent Class AnalysisHi Statalist I am performing Latent Class Analysis in STATA 14. I am using the following Code: gse…
iv with interactionI have an endogenous variable P . In my specification I also have interaction of P with X (X is an e…
How to use -graph combine- and typical twoway options with -meta forest-Dear all, I would like to present forest plots side by side, but -meta forest- does not work well w…
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 Response to How do I interpret insignificant levels of categorical predictors in binomial logistic regression?
Post a Comment