1 / 11

Logit VS Probit

Logit VS Probit. Multicollinearity. Variable | VIF 1/VIF -------------+---------------------- cgpa | 3.51 0.284876 exec | 2.22 0.449574 coe | 2.17 0.459895 cla | 2.11 0.474160 usg | 1.87 0.533809

ray-petty
Download Presentation

Logit VS Probit

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Logit VS Probit

  2. Multicollinearity Variable | VIF 1/VIF -------------+---------------------- cgpa | 3.51 0.284876 exec | 2.22 0.449574 coe | 2.17 0.459895 cla | 2.11 0.474160 usg | 1.87 0.533809 fail | 1.85 0.539904 cob | 1.81 0.552524 cso | 1.75 0.570504 spo | 1.70 0.587795 ccs | 1.63 0.615103 sociocivic | 1.51 0.661154 artist | 1.43 0.697746 do | 1.43 0.697836 ced | 1.40 0.715838 single | 1.33 0.752037 male | 1.31 0.764595 athlete | 1.28 0.780571 cos | 1.23 0.814467 year | 1.21 0.826796 -------------+---------------------- Mean VIF | 1.72

  3. Heteroscedasticity Breusch-Pagan / Cook-Weisberg test for heteroskedasticity Ho: Constant variance Variables: fitted values of gain chi2(1) = 0.27 Prob > chi2 = 0.6032

  4. Marginal effects after logit y = Pr(gain) (predict) = .58551842 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ variable | dy/dx Std. Err. z P>|z| [ 95% C.I. ] X ---------+-------------------------------------------------------------------- exec | -.0654206 .06939 -0.94 0.346 -.20143 .070588 .663043 fail | -.0125505 .02833 -0.44 0.658 -.068074 .042973 1.6087 athlete*| -.0111731 .38205 -0.03 0.977 -.759977 .737631 .032609 artist*| .1061354 .16788 0.63 0.527 -.222898 .435168 .152174 usg*| .1607951 .1645 0.98 0.328 -.161619 .48321 .271739 cso*| .2084456 .14428 1.44 0.149 -.074336 .491227 .25 spo*| .3129035 .20194 1.55 0.121 -.082896 .708703 .021739 socioc~c*| .1205887 .33378 0.36 0.718 -.533604 .774781 .032609 ccs*| .2582453 .17009 1.52 0.129 -.075117 .591608 .097826 ced*| .369431 .11821 3.13 0.002 .137751 .601111 .065217 cla*| -.0753862 .2571 -0.29 0.769 -.579289 .428517 .097826 cob*| .1196579 .15158 0.79 0.430 -.177435 .416751 .315217 coe*| -.3140313 .19924 -1.58 0.115 -.70454 .076477 .184783 cgpa | -.5219233 .25709 -2.03 0.042 -1.02582 -.018028 2.72109 male*| .0685172 .1258 0.54 0.586 -.178045 .31508 .532609 single*| .3996482 .13683 2.92 0.003 .131471 .667826 .782609 year | .0354592 .08156 0.43 0.664 -.124393 .195312 2.83696 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ (*) dy/dx is for discrete change of dummy variable from 0 to 1

  5. Interpretation(Gain) • The probability that Y=1 is 59% • People are generally risk averse • Students who hold executive positions are more likely to be risk seeking • Students who join extracurricular activities are more likely to be risk averse, except for athletes • As students fail more, they tend to be more risk seeking • Those with high CGPA are more likely to be risk seeking • Male are more likely to be risk averse • Those who are single are more likely to be risk averse • As years goes by, students tend to be more risk averse.

  6. Marginal effects after logit • y = Pr(loss) (predict) • = .40368042 • ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ • variable | dy/dx Std. Err. z P>|z| [ 95% C.I. ] X • ---------+-------------------------------------------------------------------- • exec | .0721286 .07194 1.00 0.316 -.068869 .213126 .588889 • fail | .0446001 .03126 1.43 0.154 -.016662 .105862 1.56667 • athlete*| .0675779 .41021 0.16 0.869 -.736417 .871573 .033333 • artist*| -.0293145 .19107 -0.15 0.878 -.40381 .345181 .144444 • usg*| -.261394 .15213 -1.72 0.086 -.559567 .036779 .266667 • cso*| .169309 .17225 0.98 0.326 -.1683 .506918 .255556 • socioc~c*| .1046709 .46328 0.23 0.821 -.803333 1.01267 .033333 • ccs*| .2786843 .2468 1.13 0.259 -.205038 .762406 .088889 • ced*| -.2613246 .17545 -1.49 0.136 -.605196 .082546 .066667 • cla*| -.2950811 .18929 -1.56 0.119 -.666088 .075926 .088889 • cob*| -.0499317 .15545 -0.32 0.748 -.354611 .254747 .322222 • coe*| -.0171185 .21815 -0.08 0.937 -.444676 .410439 .188889 • cgpa | .2807113 .25879 1.08 0.278 -.226512 .787934 2.71217 • male*| -.1737314 .12486 -1.39 0.164 -.418451 .070988 .544444 • single*| -.1791192 .15745 -1.14 0.255 -.487717 .129479 .788889 • year | .0295779 .08082 0.37 0.714 -.128832 .187988 2.83333 • ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ • (*) dy/dx is for discrete change of dummy variable from 0 to 1

  7. Interpretation(Loss) • The probability that Y=1 is 40% • People are generally risk seeking • Students who hold executive positions are more likely to be risk averse • Students who join extracurricular activities are more likely to be risk averse, except for artist and USG • As students fail more, they tend to be more risk averse • Those with high CGPA are more likely to be risk averse • Male are more likely to be risk seeking • Those who are single are more likely to be risk seeking • As years goes by, students tend to be more risk averse.

  8. Marginal effects after logit y = Pr(consistent) (predict) = .52562264 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ variable | dy/dx Std. Err. z P>|z| [ 95% C.I. ] X ---------+-------------------------------------------------------------------- exec | .3730161 .12941 2.88 0.004 .119371 .626661 .663043 fail | .0358207 .03302 1.08 0.278 -.028895 .100536 1.6087 athlete*| .0280015 .36085 0.08 0.938 -.679243 .735246 .032609 artist*| -.2250507 .18023 -1.25 0.212 -.578298 .128196 .152174 usg*| .044608 .17934 0.25 0.804 -.306896 .396112 .271739 cso*| -.2324146 .17627 -1.32 0.187 -.57789 .113061 .25 spo*| -.5361031 .08375 -6.40 0.000 -.700252 -.371954 .021739 socioc~c*| .0739209 .37881 0.20 0.845 -.668541 .816383 .032609 ccs*| -.499848 .14871 -3.36 0.001 -.791314 -.208382 .097826 ced*| -.1732109 .30073 -0.58 0.565 -.762635 .416213 .065217 cla*| .2093161 .22181 0.94 0.345 -.225427 .644059 .097826 cob*| .1850299 .15765 1.17 0.241 -.123952 .494012 .315217 coe*| -.1390136 .22829 -0.61 0.543 -.58645 .308423 .184783 cgpa | -.0423288 .26124 -0.16 0.871 -.554357 .469699 2.72109 male*| -.049474 .13446 -0.37 0.713 -.313013 .214065 .532609 single*| .1908496 .15783 1.21 0.227 -.118498 .500197 .782609 year | .0867046 .08319 1.04 0.297 -.076344 .249754 2.83696 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ (*) dy/dx is for discrete change of dummy variable from 0 to 1

  9. Interpretation • The probability that Y=1 is 53% • People are generally consistent with their choice • Students who hold executive positions are more likely to be consistent • Students who join extracurricular activities are more susceptible to framing except for athletes, USG and Sociocivic • As students fail more, they tend to be more consistent with their choices • Those with high CGPA are more susceptible to framing effects • Male are more susceptible to framing effects • Those who are single are more consistent • As years goes by, students tend to be more consistent

  10. Marginal effects after logit y = Pr(prospect) (predict) = .26369969 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ variable | dy/dx Std. Err. z P>|z| [ 95% C.I. ] X ---------+-------------------------------------------------------------------- exec | -.2359319 .09243 -2.55 0.011 -.417097 -.054767 .663043 fail | -.0488731 .03214 -1.52 0.128 -.111874 .014128 1.6087 athlete*| -.0563669 .25374 -0.22 0.824 -.553689 .440956 .032609 artist*| .2021112 .18948 1.07 0.286 -.16927 .573492 .152174 usg*| .1966301 .1708 1.15 0.250 -.138132 .531392 .271739 cso*| .1227877 .17273 0.71 0.477 -.215751 .461326 .25 spo*| .7531349 .06625 11.37 0.000 .623284 .882986 .021739 socioc~c*| -.0049045 .31065 -0.02 0.987 -.613759 .60395 .032609 ccs*| .2651556 .2909 0.91 0.362 -.304995 .835306 .097826 ced*| .4887275 .2608 1.87 0.061 -.022428 .999883 .065217 cla*| -.0028899 .20605 -0.01 0.989 -.406749 .400969 .097826 cob*| -.0473009 .13834 -0.34 0.732 -.318437 .223835 .315217 coe*| .0093687 .1866 0.05 0.960 -.356364 .375101 .184783 cgpa | -.2644698 .21933 -1.21 0.228 -.694354 .165414 2.72109 male*| .1048044 .11102 0.94 0.345 -.112782 .322391 .532609 single*| .147567 .10751 1.37 0.170 -.063146 .35828 .782609 year | -.0389002 .06514 -0.60 0.550 -.166576 .088776 2.83696 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ (*) dy/dx is for discrete change of dummy variable from 0 to 1

  11. Interpretation • The prospect theory generally doesn’t hold true • Students who hold executive positions are more inclined to follow the theory • Students who join extracurricular activities are more inclined to follow the theory except for athletes and Sociocivic • As students fail more, they tend to disagree with the prospect theory • Those with high CGPA tend to disagree with the prospect theory • Male are more inclined to follow the theory • Those who are single are more inclined to follow the theory • As years goes by, students tend to disagree with the prospect theory

More Related