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

Re: st: RE: Ranksum and Makematrix


From   "Herve STOLOWY" <[email protected]>
To   <[email protected]>
Subject   Re: st: RE: Ranksum and Makematrix
Date   Fri, 01 Apr 2005 21:12:37 +0200

Dear Nick:

I added "listwise" and the problem is solved.

I sincerely appreciate your help (once more).

Best regards

Herv�

***********************************************************
Professeur/Professor
Coordinateur du D�partement/Head of Department
HEC Paris
D�partement Comptabilit� Contr�le de gestion / Dept of Accounting and Management Control
1, rue de la Liberation
78351 - Jouy-en-Josas
France
Tel: +33 1 39 67 94 42 - Fax: +33 1 39 67 70 86
[email protected]
http://campus.hec.fr/profs/stolowy/perso/home.htm
>>> [email protected] 04/01/05 9:06 PM >>>
As always, please remember for the edification
of others to quote the origin of Stata 
commands that are user-written. 

-makematrix- is available from SSC. 

Without knowing more about your data, this 
does appear strange. It may be that you 
need to apply the -listwise- option. 

With P-values as small as that, you don't
need these results anyway! 

Nick 
[email protected] 

Herve STOLOWY
 
> I face the following strange phenomenon concerning the 
> -ranksum- test and -makematrix-.
> 
> If I use the following command:
> 
> makematrix c1, from(r(z) 2*normprob(-abs(r(z)))) : ranksum 
> exp_fi , by(interne)
> 
> It works and I get the following matrix:
> 
> c1[1,2]
>                           z  2*normprob(-abs(z))
> exp_fi            4.9154637            8.857e-07
> 
> When I add two variables, my first variable is not disclosed anymore:
> 
> makematrix c2, from(r(z) 2*normprob(-abs(r(z)))) : ranksum 
> exp_fi fonction_ent fonction_exp, by(interne)
> 
> c2[3,2]
>                                 z  2*normprob(-abs(z))
>       exp_fi                    .                    .
> fonction_ent           -5.8967476            3.707e-09
> fonction_exp            5.8967476            3.707e-09
> 
> I know that the last two variables are defined on the basis 
> of the first one. But is this explanation sufficient to 
> understand why the first variable "disappears"? Why couldn't 
> I have the first variable also reported, as it is with the 
> first command?

*
*   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/


*
*   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 1996–2024 StataCorp LLC   |   Terms of use   |   Privacy   |   Contact us   |   What's new   |   Site index