What about:
. gen newvar = irecode(var,1,2,5,10,.)+1
?
Nick Cox wrote:
Terminology appears to be a small problem here.
I understand = to indicate equality and >, >=, < or <=
to indicate inequality. Your contradictory usage
is rather surprising.
That aside, the key point is that -recode- is announced
as for recoding categorical variables, meaning
in practice categorical variables coded as
integers.
-recode- does allow many-to-one mappings, but it
really is not a good idea to use it for re-coding
a continuous variable. Even though your work-around
apparently worked for you, it is no more than
a work-around. Also, there are plenty of possible
values between 0 and 0.0001, etc., and testing
for equality and inequality with a decimal fraction
is usually problematic.
Now Stata as such doesn't really have any idea
of what a categorical variable is, and thus does
not declare your use to be an error, although
there are several good arguments for strictness
in such matters (or at least for a -force- option
which shows that you realise exactly what
you are doing).
For your coding a perfectly respectable
approach is
gen newvar = 1 if var <= 1
replace newvar = 2 if var <= 2 & missing(newvar)
replace newvar = 3 if var <= 5 & missing(newvar)
replace newvar = 4 if var <= 10 & missing(newvar)
replace newvar = 5 if var < . & missing(newvar)
replace newvar = . if var == .
That may look long-winded, but it is perfectly
explicit and easy to understand.
Another perfectly respectable approach is
make use of -inrange(,)-:
gen newvar = 1 if inrange(var,.,1)
replace newvar = 2 if inrange(var,1,2) & missing(newvar)
replace newvar = 3 if inrange(var,2,5) & missing(newvar)
replace newvar = 4 if inrange(var,5,10) & missing(newvar)
replace newvar = 5 if inrange(var,10,.) & missing(newvar)
replace newvar = . if var == .
although with -inrange()- it is not so transparent
what happens in the case of equality with either
argument. See the help for -inrange()-.
Yet another perfectably respectable approach is to
make use of -cond()-.
gen newvar = cond(var <= 1, 1,
cond(var <= 2, 2,
cond(var <= 5, 3,
cond(var <= 10, 4,
cond(var < ., 5, .)))))
That is all one command. Careful layout and use
of a good text editor to check balanced parentheses
are recommended.
Personally, for your example problem, I like -cond()- best.
For a discursive tutorial see
SJ-5-3 pr0016 . . Depending on conditions: a tutorial on the cond() function
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D. Kantor and N. J. Cox
Q3/05 SJ 5(3):413--420 (no commands)
tutorial on the cond() function
Nick
n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk
b. water
Stata 8.2,
i wanted to recode a variable, which consisted of continuous
number, something to the effect of:
<=1 coded 1 (<= i.e. meaning less than or equal to)
1 to <=2 coded 2
2 to <= 5 coded 3
5 to <=10 coded 4
10 coded 5
when i tried to use the equality operands (i.e. < or > in my
recode commands, it gives an error message 'unknown el <2 in
rule') so after consulting my manual on [R] recode, i managed
by recoding:
0.0001/1 = 1
1.0001/2 = 2
.
.
10/1000 = 5
etc
being careful to make sure that the parameters included all
the values.
i would appreciate if someone could confirm that equality
sign cannot be used in recode. would appreciate it too if
anyone can point out an alternative/better way to accomplish
the recode.
*
* 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/