Statalist The Stata Listserver

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

Re: st:Transformation for skewed variables with negative values?

From   "woong-tae chung" <>
To   <>
Subject   Re: st:Transformation for skewed variables with negative values?
Date   Sun, 15 Aug 2004 11:20:01 -0600

Thanks for the wonderful comment on my inquiry.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Joseph Coveney" <>
To: "Statalist" <>
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 10:50 AM
Subject: Re: st:Transformation for skewed variables with negative values?

> Woong Chung wrote:
> I need following help. I have panel dataset for estimating a simple linear
> equation.
> The problem is that my all variables have sknewness and big variation(large
> std).
> In particualr, the dependent variable and one of independant variables have
> a negative sknewness, while all other independant variables are shown by
> positive sknewness. My first intension is using a log transformation of all
> variables  but seems not to be a good idea since all variables have negative
> values (around 20%)
> Besides, all variables except one of independant variables are ratio, thus
> that idea would make worse.
> I would be so glad if anyone has suggestions to solve this problem
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> It's not clear that you actually have a problem.
> It shouldn't be a problem that your independent variables are skewed or have 
> a wide distribution.  There isn't any assumption their distribution, and it 
> is considered better to for them to cover more ground.  They're only assumed 
> not to comprise a linear combination within machine precision.  (There are 
> other assumptions about them, in particular, about their relation to the 
> random effects, but that's another matter.)
> Fit the model as-is.  Examine the residuals and empirical Bayes predictions.
> If these do not have a reasonably normal-appearing distribution, then
> transform the dependent variable in accordance with shaping-up their
> distributions, and not the dependent variable's distribution per se.
> Also, from your description, it seems that your dependent variable is a 
> ratio.  Consider sticking its denominator in the model as a predictor and 
> using its numerator as the dependent variable.
> Joseph Coveney
> *
> *   For searches and help try:
> *
> *
> *

*   For searches and help try:

© Copyright 1996–2017 StataCorp LLC   |   Terms of use   |   Privacy   |   Contact us   |   What's new   |   Site index