Stata The Stata listserver
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date index][Thread index]

RE: st: RE: Imputed Missing Values with Uvis


From   "Nick Cox" <n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk>
To   <statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu>
Subject   RE: st: RE: Imputed Missing Values with Uvis
Date   Fri, 25 Feb 2005 00:16:19 -0000

Thanks for this. It's a subtle point, but 
I'd say that -uvis- doesn't impute and 
it shows this by putting a missing value, 
rather than that it does impute and imputes 
with a missing value. By the rules of Stata
it has to put something in the value of
each variable. However, the implication
is the same. 

Nick 
n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk 

Quang Nguyen
 
> Dear Nick and Richard,
> 
> Thanks so much for your advices. I highly appreciate it. Yes I do
> understand that we need to impute "y" ONLY for observations with
> missing values. Uvis, however, imputes "y" for all observations. As a
> result, the imputed "y" might has missing value if any of "x" is
> missing on a given observation. Thanks Richard for offering an
> execellent way of dealing with this interesting issue.
> 
> I truly enjoy this forum where any of my question is answered just
> moments after it posted. You are GREAT!
> 
> On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 23:36:07 -0000, Nick Cox 
> <n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk> wrote:
> > No doubt this is what is often
> > wanted. But the help for -uvis-
> > is explicit:
> > 
> > Note that uvis will not impute observations for which
> > a value of a variable in xvarlist is
> > missing. Only complete cases within xvarlist are used.
> > 
> > Nick
> > n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk
> > 
> > Richard Williams
> > 
> > > At 10:03 PM 2/24/2005 +0000, you wrote:
> > > >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.
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > > 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/



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