Statalist The Stata Listserver


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

st: RE: ice and constructed variables


From   "Nick Cox" <n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk>
To   <statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu>
Subject   st: RE: ice and constructed variables
Date   Tue, 31 Oct 2006 16:01:52 -0000

I guess that you shouldn't represent it in -ice- 
at all. Imputing the components is one thing. Producing 
a construct downstream of the imputation is another. 
Otherwise, at best, it is hard to disentangle what 
to blame for what. 

In any case, what is your formula here? Dying to know, 

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

sas146@columbia.edu
 
> I'm trying to undertake multiple imputation with "ice" and have a
> questions about how to account for the relationship between a
> constructed variable and its multiple component parts.  I'm aware
> that I should use "passive" and, at times, "eq", but not exactly
> sure of how. For example, I have created a variable I'll call
> "sexuality" from the "gender" variable (0,1) and "attracted to
> males" (0,1) and "attracted to females" (0,1).  How would I
> represent this in "ice"?  I'd appreciate some help figuring this
> out.
> Thanks
> S. Strauss
> 
> *
> *   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 1996–2014 StataCorp LP   |   Terms of use   |   Privacy   |   Contact us   |   What's new   |   Site index