2009
DOI: 10.4135/9781412993869
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Fixed Effects Regression Models

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

16
2,710
2
35

Year Published

2010
2010
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2,970 publications
(2,763 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
16
2,710
2
35
Order By: Relevance
“…We used a hospitalization-level fixed effect, sometimes called conditional models. 42 These results controlled for the patient's depressive symptoms status before his/her severe sepsis episode. Since our outcome was not rare, we used fixed-effects Poisson regression analyses to estimate the relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (95%CIs) for post-severe sepsis substantial depressive symptoms.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We used a hospitalization-level fixed effect, sometimes called conditional models. 42 These results controlled for the patient's depressive symptoms status before his/her severe sepsis episode. Since our outcome was not rare, we used fixed-effects Poisson regression analyses to estimate the relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (95%CIs) for post-severe sepsis substantial depressive symptoms.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This approach is analogous to Individual Layoff History and Voluntary Turnover ! 43 estimating a random effects model (Allison, 2009;Gutierrez, 2002), here accounting for heterogeneity in the risk of voluntary turnover between layoff victims and non-victims.…”
Section: Methodsological Considerationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Within the NLSY79 panel, most individuals report multiple job spells over the length of their work histories, allowing for the removal of unobserved sources of variation that remain constant within individuals. This is achieved within the Cox proportional hazards model by stratifying by individual, which affords each respondent a unique baseline function into which the unobserved, person-constant error is moved (Allison, 2009). Because the baseline is not used to compute hazard ratios, estimates are free of constant, person-specific error.…”
Section: Models Estimated To Test Hypotheses 1 Through 5 Describe Thementioning
confidence: 99%
“…These FE panel regression models enable us to do so by implicitly accounting for any unobserved person-specific (time-invariant) factors which might confound the associations, thus minimizing any omitted variable bias that may arise due to these [25,26].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%