For the delta deviance influence diagnostic in logistic regression ddeviance from predict (using v 14 right now, but I don’t think that this has changed), it seems that Stata uses formula #5.26 in Hosmer, et.al. (2013). Formula 5.26 is stated to be an "approximation" if the subject's Pearson residual is substituted for the deviance residual from the prior stated formula. However, Minitab uses the formula without this substitution (just prior, but unnumbered in the Hosmer text). These formulas produce somewhat different values, and I am trying to understand the logic of Stata on this choice.
Thanks for any enlightenment you might offer!
John
Related Posts with ddeviance result differs from Minitab
i do not know what to doHi all please i need help, i have 2 variables, 1: alcscore”: a continuous score containing the respo…
Does VIF account for negative correlations?Does VIF account for inverse correlation? For example if you have two variables that are negatively …
Generate new variables from existing onesHi all please i need help, i have 2 variables, 1: alcscore”: a continuous score containing the respo…
Adding a variable to a dataset from another datasetHi my original dataset (year 2007) had over 2000 variables and i dropped them all except from 8 vari…
Unexpected behavior with in-line if statementsI experienced a quirk with Stata. It appears that if statements read (and evaluate) the entire line,…
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 Response to ddeviance result differs from Minitab
Post a Comment