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

From |
Richard Williams <Richard.A.Williams.5@nd.edu> |

To |
statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu |

Subject |
Re: st: RE: Imputed Missing Values with Uvis |

Date |
Thu, 24 Feb 2005 18:28:31 -0500 |

At 10:03 PM 2/24/2005 +0000, you wrote:

If I understand Quang correctly, then the latter is exactly the point. -uvis- should have just plugged in the observed value for y rather than even try to impute it; but instead, it plugged in a missing value since one or more of the Xs for that case was missing.You seem surprised at this. If you don't know -x1-, you cannot predict -y- from -x1 x2 x3-; and so on. If you do know -y- you don't need to impute it.

I tried -uvis- on a data set where y was not missing but some values of x were. The generated y had missing data whereas the original y did not.

I'm not that familiar with the programs but if nothing else one work around might be

replace uvis_y = max(original_y, uvis_y)

where uvis_y is the var generated by uvis. If I've done this correctly, then whenever -uvis- generated an unnecessary MD code for y, the original non-missing value for y will get plugged back in.

*

* 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/

**References**:**st: RE: Imputed Missing Values with Uvis***From:*"Nick Cox" <n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk>

- Prev by Date:
**st: -tabplot- and -tableplot- updated on SSC** - Next by Date:
**RE: st: RE: Imputed Missing Values with Uvis** - Previous by thread:
**st: RE: Imputed Missing Values with Uvis** - Next by thread:
**RE: st: RE: Imputed Missing Values with Uvis** - Index(es):

© Copyright 1996–2016 StataCorp LP | Terms of use | Privacy | Contact us | What's new | Site index |