Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Probit average predicted probabilities

    Good afternoon,

    I'm trying to generate average predicted probabilities of employment for those who are work-limiting disabled and the non-disabled to compare.

    Whilst I have looked at numerous resources online and understood them, a paper's methodology I am trying to replicate uses the term 'average predicted probabilities'. I want to ensure the method I have found online is applicable to generate average predicted probabilities.

    My dependent variable is: 'emp' (=1 if wages >0, =0 if otherwise) and my variable of interest is 'DISTYPE' ( 1 = work-limiting disabled; 2 = daily activity- limiting disabled; 4= non-disabled).

    I was wondering whether any clarity could be provided regarding whether the following approach is valid:

    Code:
     probit emp DISTYPE SEX ETH AGES1 URESMC1 HDPCH191 IND1 MARSTA1 HIQUAL81 REGWKR1 SKSBN911 FTPTWK1, nolog
    HTML Code:
     margins, at(DISTYPE=(1 4)) atmeans vsquish
    
    Adjusted predictions                            Number of obs     =      4,830
    Model VCE    : OIM
    
    Expression   : Pr(emp), predict()
    1._at        : DISTYPE         =           1
                   SEX             =    1.538302 (mean)
                   ETH             =    1.146791 (mean)
                   AGES1           =    10.33685 (mean)
                   URESMC1         =    10.54244 (mean)
                   HDPCH191        =    .6463768 (mean)
                   IND1            =    3.478054 (mean)
                   MARSTA1         =    2.133747 (mean)
                   HIQUAL81        =    26.86522 (mean)
                   REGWKR1         =    6.403313 (mean)
                   SKSBN911        =    .3763975 (mean)
                   FTPTWK1         =   -.9333333 (mean)
    2._at        : DISTYPE         =           4
                   SEX             =    1.538302 (mean)
                   ETH             =    1.146791 (mean)
                   AGES1           =    10.33685 (mean)
                   URESMC1         =    10.54244 (mean)
                   HDPCH191        =    .6463768 (mean)
                   IND1            =    3.478054 (mean)
                   MARSTA1         =    2.133747 (mean)
                   HIQUAL81        =    26.86522 (mean)
                   REGWKR1         =    6.403313 (mean)
                   SKSBN911        =    .3763975 (mean)
                   FTPTWK1         =   -.9333333 (mean)
    
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 |            Delta-method
                 |     Margin   Std. Err.      z    P>|z|     [95% Conf. Interval]
    -------------+----------------------------------------------------------------
             _at |
              1  |   .1761419   .0237056     7.43   0.000     .1296797     .222604
              2  |   .2090076   .0206316    10.13   0.000     .1685705    .2494448
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Any help would be greatly appreciated.

  • #2
    What you computed are the probabilities at average values of the explanatory variables. This is not the same as the average probabilities. If that is what you want (and that is a good default) then you just have to remove the atmeans option (it is such a good default, that it is the default of margins).
    ---------------------------------
    Maarten L. Buis
    University of Konstanz
    Department of history and sociology
    box 40
    78457 Konstanz
    Germany
    http://www.maartenbuis.nl
    ---------------------------------

    Comment


    • #3
      Perfect, thank you very much.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Maarten Buis View Post
        What you computed are the probabilities at average values of the explanatory variables. This is not the same as the average probabilities. If that is what you want (and that is a good default) then you just have to remove the atmeans option (it is such a good default, that it is the default of margins).
        Apologies, I have just been reading up on Blinder-Oaxaca decomposition as a possible means to assess a legislation's impact on wage differentials and discrimination between the non-disabled and work-limiting disabled. The results in #1 are strictly pre-legislation and utilise unlogged wages (I think removing the need for 2 step Heckman). Is the Blinder-Oaxaca decomposition a feasible method in which I can attempt to replicate the methodology in this literature (attached, pp 33- 34) for pre- and post-legislation to compare?

        Any help would be greatly appreciated, thank you.
        Using differences in the work limiting nature of a disability, employment discrimination against the disabled is separated from the unobserved effect …
        Last edited by Will Murphy; 30 Mar 2020, 10:58.

        Comment

        Working...
        X