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
Lead variable in unbalanced panel dataHi All, I have annual data on the sales revenue of firms. I have the year variable as follows: year …
Issue with binary logistic regression results when a predictor has only one of the binary responses.I'm using binary logistic regression, and I have encountered a problem with a predictor which has al…
Problems with Outreg2 for my dissertationHello, I am having some problems running my code in stata. The code is as follows: regress dependen…
Getting standard output of shell command into logI'd like to capture the output of shell commands in the Stata log. For example I tried: Code: log u…
help with egen commandI am trying to look at labor division by gender in a household. my data set has collected the member…
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 Response to ddeviance result differs from Minitab
Post a Comment