I used the following code
Code:
areg grade shock#c.months_exposure#c.treatment_intensity shock months_exposure treatment_intensity i.round,a(id) cluster (cluster_id)
Code:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Robust grade | Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval] -------------------------------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- shock#c.months_exposure#| c.treatment_intensity | 0 | 3.06e-06 3.68e-06 0.83 0.416 -4.64e-06 .0000108 1 | 1.34e-06 3.47e-06 0.39 0.704 -5.93e-06 8.60e-06 | shock | .0428199 .0584205 0.73 0.473 -.0794556 .1650955 months_exposure | .011039 .0155351 0.71 0.486 -.0214763 .0435543 treatment_intensity | -.0001264 .00028 -0.45 0.657 -.0007124 .0004596 | round | 1 | 0 (empty) 2 | 0 (omitted) 3 | 1.337061 .3766628 3.55 0.002 .5486966 2.125425 4 | 4.615511 1.075007 4.29 0.000 2.365495 6.865527 5 | 7.13307 1.617598 4.41 0.000 3.747399 10.51874 | _cons | .1175795 .0889333 1.32 0.202 -.0685599 .3037189 -------------------------------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- id | absorbed (1856 categories)
As can be seen, the regression table reports coefficient when the interaction term is zero. Shouldn't the coefficient in that case be zero, and hence be omitted?
For instance, with this specification
Code:
areg grade shock##c.treatment_intensity i.round,a(id) cluster(cluster_id)
Code:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Robust grade | Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval] ----------------------------------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- 1.shock | .0320189 .0630621 0.51 0.617 -.0999716 .1640094 treatment_intensity | .0000266 .0001911 0.14 0.891 -.0003734 .0004266 | shock#c.treatment_intensity | 1 | -.0000893 .0001444 -0.62 0.544 -.0003915 .0002129 | round | 1 | 0 (empty) 2 | -5.459317 .1785494 -30.58 0.000 -5.833026 -5.085609 3 | -3.851622 .0677831 -56.82 0.000 -3.993493 -3.70975 4 | 0 (omitted) 5 | 2.898968 .0800272 36.22 0.000 2.731469 3.066467 | _cons | 5.584258 .1059441 52.71 0.000 5.362515 5.806002 ----------------------------------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- id | absorbed (1856 categories)
Can anyone please explain why this difference in reporting coefficients? I feel I'm missing something simple but I'm unable to figure it out.
Thanks,
0 Response to Interpretation of the following regression result
Post a Comment