Dear Stata-Users,
I have a question concerning the interpretation of interaction effects in multinomial (and ultimately also binary) logit models.
I read the Stata Tip 87 by Maarten Buis, so I use relative risk ratios for interpretation and generate interaction effects via "mlogit y x1##x2 ui, robust rrr base(2)" (where ui are other variables). However, I know of no tip or post by Mr. Buis that he states that the z-values for the interaction effect posted by Stata can be interpreted. I am under the impression that z-values for interaction terms in nonlinear models cannot be interpreted (therefore, one would need to use -inteff-).
I assume that reporting relative risk ratios (or odds ratios) wouldn't really make a difference because that obviously doesn't affect the z-values.
Is it possible to "transform" the multinomial variable into two binary variables, with the respective base category and check via -inteff- if the interaction effects are significant? If they are significant I could just interpret them in the model with the risk rate ratios?
Thank you for input,
uk013
I have a question concerning the interpretation of interaction effects in multinomial (and ultimately also binary) logit models.
I read the Stata Tip 87 by Maarten Buis, so I use relative risk ratios for interpretation and generate interaction effects via "mlogit y x1##x2 ui, robust rrr base(2)" (where ui are other variables). However, I know of no tip or post by Mr. Buis that he states that the z-values for the interaction effect posted by Stata can be interpreted. I am under the impression that z-values for interaction terms in nonlinear models cannot be interpreted (therefore, one would need to use -inteff-).
I assume that reporting relative risk ratios (or odds ratios) wouldn't really make a difference because that obviously doesn't affect the z-values.
Is it possible to "transform" the multinomial variable into two binary variables, with the respective base category and check via -inteff- if the interaction effects are significant? If they are significant I could just interpret them in the model with the risk rate ratios?
Thank you for input,
uk013
Comment