[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date index][Thread index]

From |
"Nick Cox" <n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk> |

To |
<statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu> |

Subject |
RE: st: RE: Re: Weighted number of observations |

Date |
Tue, 3 Aug 2004 22:16:51 +0100 |

No, sorry, but I think you are missing two points here. Easier one first: the expression "passing the buck" was, as you probably realise, my attempt to leaven an otherwise dull posting. More seriously, the division of labour whereby -tabstat- organises and displays what is produced by -summarize- internally is excellent from all points of view. There is no reason at all to change it. If -tabstat- doesn't do something, and a different program is needed, that's a different matter. The rationale of -tabstat- is to act as a wrapper for, and thus to be totally consistent with, what -summarize- calculates. To get -tabstat- to do something different, or extra, would in my view be bad program design, modulo a few arguable details (e.g. cv is just a minor extension of what -summarize- does). On the original question, I maintain that Stata is working consistently with the documentation, but I do agree that the latter could be tweaked to make it clearer. A key principle is that whenever a sum of weights is being used, what that sum of weights is should be accessible in some way, and Stata satisfies this criterion. Nick n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu > [mailto:owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu]On Behalf Of Richard > Williams > > At 03:34 PM 8/3/2004 +0100, Nick Cox wrote: > >This isn't a -tabstat- issue as such. -tabstat- > >just passes the buck to -summarize-, which > >behaves in the same way. > > > >The issue is delicate, but hinges, I surmise, > >on this distinction. When -summarize- (e.g.) _uses_ > >the sum of the weights, it rescales first. > >As quoted, [U] 14.1.6 includes the expression > >"when it uses them", which thus appears not > >ornamental, but crucial. > > > >When -summarize- _displays_ the sum of the > >weights, it displays the unscaled sum. > > Good point, although it still leaves open the question of why > it behaves > this way. A long-standing oversight or bug? Sound > statistical practice? > (If so, it wouldn't be the first time Stata has surprised me > by not doing > what I expected, and then having it turn out that Stata was > right.) Should > -tabstat- be modified so it doesn't just pass the buck to -summarize-? * * For searches and help try: * http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/res/findit.html * http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq * http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/

- Prev by Date:
**Re: st: RE: Re: Weighted number of observations** - Next by Date:
**st: SPSS to Stata using DBMS/Copy** - Previous by thread:
**Re: st: RE: Re: Weighted number of observations** - Next by thread:
**st: RE: RE: Re: Weighted number of observations** - Index(es):

© Copyright 1996–2014 StataCorp LP | Terms of use | Privacy | Contact us | What's new | Site index |