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
dropping observations if variable is zero between time periodHello, Could someone please help me dropping some observations? I'm investigating the influence of …
Monte Carlo simulation comparing output for OLS and 2SLS by saving beta and se's in matrixHi In my simulation I am trying to compare output from OLS and 2SLS. I have the following code which…
Using drop-command for a variable depending on the value of another variableHi, for my cumulative dataset (European Social Survey 2002-2018) I have a variable which measures if…
Panel data for for asset pricing modelsHi, Im working on my masters thesis. I have unbalanced panel data, for about 1550 individial mutual …
Combining two categorical income variablesHi, I'm using a cumulative dataset of the European Social Survey from 2002-2018. In my analysis I wa…
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 Response to ddeviance result differs from Minitab
Post a Comment