Nick Cox wrote:
>>As for the general claim, here is one situation in which aweights seem
at first sight quite right for binary responses. In geography we can
have two kinds of land cover or land use (land/sea, urban/rural,
whatever) and we know or measure the fractions of each in various areas.
For example, 71% of the Earth is sea and 29% is land. There is not a
known or even natural integer for the number of observations each of
those fractions is based on. >>
Yes I can think of a number of similar problems in psychology, where a weight was desired for a binary outcome but not one based on a count/total. For instance, one might have a weight or confidence rating of some sort elicited from a subject who had to make a binary choice first, e.g.,:
Based on some criteria, Choose between option A or option B (record binary outcome) How confident were you in your decision? (record confidence score)
I am not saying a weighted analysis is the best one or that this pesentation method is without flaws, just that neither are crazy.
*
* For searches and help try:
* http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search
* http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
* http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/
