Transcript Methods Workshop (3/10/07)

```Methods Workshop (3/10/07)
Topic: Event Count Models





Open STATA
Type “findit spost”
version of STATA you are running
Type “findit outreg”
Introduction


What are event counts?
Examples





Number of
Number of
Number of
circulated
Number of
uses of force per year
bills vetoed by the president per year
Supreme Court draft opinions
people murdered by state (genocide)
Comparison to other data forms


Dichotomous variables
Event history
Motivation



OLS may produce biased,
inconsistent, and inefficient
estimates of event count data.
OLS makes predictions for negative
Y values, while event counts are
truncated at zero.
However, OLS models may be okay
as the mean number of events in
the event count series increases.
Types of Event Count Models







Poisson
Negative Binomial
Generalized Event Count
Truncated
Hurdle
Zero-inflated
Poisson Autoregressive Model
Poisson Assumptions







Pr (y | μ) = (e-μ μy)/y!
Let y be a random variable indicating the
number of times that an event has occurred
during an interval of time
E(y) = μ
Var(y) = E(y) = μ (equidispersion)
As μ increases, the probability of 0’s decreases
As μ increases, the Poisson approximates a
normal distribution (Long & Freese, 224).
Events in non-overlapping time periods are
independent.
Estimating a Poisson Model



Data: Long’s (1990) study of 915
biochemists and the number of
school.
Mean articles = 1.7; Figure 8.2
(Long, 1997: 220)
The Poisson model may not fit best
because it under-predicts zeros and
over-predicts in the 1-4 publication
range.
Estimating Poisson in STATA

poisson art fem mar kid5 phd ment, nolog
Poisson regression
Log likelihood = -1651.0563
Number of obs
LR chi2(5)
Prob > chi2
Pseudo R2
=
=
=
=
915
183.03
0.0000
0.0525
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------art |
Coef.
Std. Err.
z
P>|z|
[95% Conf. Interval]
-------------+---------------------------------------------------------------fem | -.2245942
.0546138
-4.11
0.000
-.3316352
-.1175532
mar |
.1552434
.0613747
2.53
0.011
.0349512
.2755356
kid5 | -.1848827
.0401272
-4.61
0.000
-.2635305
-.1062349
phd |
.0128226
.0263972
0.49
0.627
-.038915
.0645601
ment |
.0255427
.0020061
12.73
0.000
.0216109
.0294746
_cons |
.3046168
.1029822
2.96
0.003
.1027755
.5064581
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We can use a variety of tools to interpret the
coefficients.
Interpreting Poisson Estimates

IRR: incidence rate ratios (add irr after comma in
poisson command)
Poisson regression
Log likelihood = -1651.0563
Number of obs
LR chi2(5)
Prob > chi2
Pseudo R2
=
=
=
=
915
183.03
0.0000
0.0525
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------art |
IRR
Std. Err.
z
P>|z|
[95% Conf. Interval]
-------------+---------------------------------------------------------------fem |
.7988403
.0436277
-4.11
0.000
.7177491
.8890932
mar |
1.167942
.0716821
2.53
0.011
1.035569
1.317236
kid5 |
.8312018
.0333538
-4.61
0.000
.7683342
.8992134
phd |
1.012905
.0267379
0.49
0.627
.9618325
1.06669
ment |
1.025872
.002058
12.73
0.000
1.021846
1.029913
------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Married graduate students publish 1.17 more articles
student publishes 1.03 more articles.
Interpreting Poisson Estimates

listcoef fem ment, help or listcoef fem ment, percent
help
poisson (N=915): Percentage Change in Expected Count
Observed SD: 1.926069
---------------------------------------------------------------------art |
b
z
P>|z|
%
%StdX
SDofX
-------------+-------------------------------------------------------fem | -0.22459
-4.112
0.000
-20.1
-10.6
0.4987
ment |
0.02554
12.733
0.000
2.6
27.4
9.4839
---------------------------------------------------------------------b = raw coefficient
z = z-score for test of b=0
P>|z| = p-value for z-test
% = percent change in expected count for unit increase in X
%StdX = percent change in expected count for SD increase in X
SDofX = standard deviation of X

Being a female scientist decreases the expected
number of articles by 20%, holding all other
variables constant.
Interpreting Poisson Coefficients







You can use the mfx command in STATA to
make point predictions for the counts.
mfx compute, at (mean fem=0)
Female (1.426), Male (1.785)
Married (1.697), Single(1.453)
Kids 0(1.764), 1(1.467), 2(1.219), 3(1.013)
You can also set more than one variable at a
theoretically interesting value (e.g. mfx
compute, at (mean fem=1 kid5=3).
You can also use the predict command to
description of several other substantive
effects.
Negative Binomial


What if the rate of productivity, or μ, differs
across individuals? This is known as
heterogeneity.
Example: suppose men produce at a rate of μ +
δ, while women produce at a rate of μ – δ. If
there are equal numbers of men and women,
then:
[(μ + δ) + (μ – δ)]/2 > μ

When the variance exceeds the mean, as it does
in this case, then we have a situation of overdispersion. The Poisson model is not appropriate
in this case, thus we estimate a negative binomial
model.
Negative Binomial


The Poisson model would also be
problematic if there is contagion in the
data, where individuals with a given set of
x’s initially have the same probability of
an event occurring, but this probability
changes as events occur (e.g. higher
chance of publishing articles once you get
the first 1 or 2 pubs.).
We can test for heterogeneity/contagion
using the poisgof command or by
examining the significant of the alpha
parameter in the negative binomial
model.
Negative Binomial

nbreg art fem mar kid5 phd ment, nolog
Negative binomial regression
Log likelihood = -1560.9583
Number of obs
LR chi2(5)
Prob > chi2
Pseudo R2
=
=
=
=
915
97.96
0.0000
0.0304
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------art |
Coef.
Std. Err.
z
P>|z|
[95% Conf. Interval]
-------------+---------------------------------------------------------------fem | -.2164184
.0726724
-2.98
0.003
-.3588537
-.0739832
mar |
.1504895
.0821063
1.83
0.067
-.0104359
.3114148
kid5 | -.1764152
.0530598
-3.32
0.001
-.2804105
-.07242
phd |
.0152712
.0360396
0.42
0.672
-.0553652
.0859075
ment |
.0290823
.0034701
8.38
0.000
.0222811
.0358836
_cons |
.256144
.1385604
1.85
0.065
-.0154294
.5277174
-------------+---------------------------------------------------------------/lnalpha | -.8173044
.1199372
-1.052377
-.5822318
-------------+---------------------------------------------------------------alpha |
.4416205
.0529667
.3491069
.5586502
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------Likelihood-ratio test of alpha=0: chibar2(01) = 180.20 Prob>=chibar2 = 0.000

Interpretation of alpha: Poisson model assumes alpha
equals zero; if p-value for chi-square test is less than
.05, then the Negative Binomial model is preferred.
Comparing Models with Outreg





poisson art fem mar kid5 phd ment,
nolog
outreg using c:\\outregexample
nbreg art fem mar kid5 phd ment, nolog
outreg using c:\\outregexample, append
xstats
View output file, with a bit of
manipulation it will look like the table in
the handout.
Generalized Event Count

Special cases of the GEC




(a) Negative Binomial, Var(y) > E(y)
(b) Poission, Var(y) = E(y)
(c) Continuous Parameter Binomial,
Var(y) < E(y)
This model can be estimated using
Gary King’s COUNT program.
Other Issues



Exposure: people might have different
exposure times (e.g. years in PhD
program); you can add an exposure
command or add a variable capturing the
natural log of exposure time. This could
also be applied if there a maximum
number of counts (use lnymax).
No zeros in your event count, e.g.
observations enter the sample only after
the first count occurs. Solution: use a
truncated model
Different processes generating zeros: use
hurdle count/split population model
Other Issues

Zero-inflated data with different processes generating
zeros: use ZIP or ZINB
Zero-inflated negative binomial regression
Number of obs
Nonzero obs
Zero obs
=
=
=
915
640
275
Inflation model = logit
Log likelihood = -1549.991
LR chi2(5)
Prob > chi2
=
=
67.97
0.0000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------art |
Coef.
Std. Err.
z
P>|z|
[95% Conf. Interval]
-------------+---------------------------------------------------------------art
|
fem | -.1955068
.0755926
-2.59
0.010
-.3436655
-.0473481
mar |
.0975826
.084452
1.16
0.248
-.0679402
.2631054
kid5 | -.1517325
.054206
-2.80
0.005
-.2579744
-.0454906
phd | -.0007001
.0362696
-0.02
0.985
-.0717872
.0703869
ment |
.0247862
.0034924
7.10
0.000
.0179412
.0316312
_cons |
.4167466
.1435962
2.90
0.004
.1353032
.69819
-------------+---------------------------------------------------------------inflate
|
fem |
.6359328
.8489175
0.75
0.454
-1.027915
2.299781
mar | -1.499469
.9386701
-1.60
0.110
-3.339228
.3402909
kid5 |
.6284274
.4427825
1.42
0.156
-.2394105
1.496265
phd | -.0377153
.3080086
-0.12
0.903
-.641401
.5659705
ment | -.8822932
.3162276
-2.79
0.005
-1.502088
-.2624984
_cons | -.1916865
1.322821
-0.14
0.885
-2.784368
2.400995
-------------+---------------------------------------------------------------/lnalpha | -.9763565
.1354679
-7.21
0.000
-1.241869
-.7108443
-------------+---------------------------------------------------------------alpha |
.3766811
.0510282
.288844
.4912293
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interpretation of ZINB



listcoef, help
Top half of output represents scientists who
have the opportunity to publish (e.g.
Among those with the opportunity to
publish, being a woman decreases the
expected rate of publication by a factor of
0.91, holding all other factors constant).
Bottom half represents chance of being in
the always zero group versus the not
always zero group (e.g. Being a woman
increases the odds of not having an
opportunity to publish by a factor of 1.89).
Other Issues



Autocorrelation: if event count
series shows persistence, use a PAR
model; alpha parameter is