Notice: On March 31, it was **announced** that Statalist is moving from an email list to a **forum**. The old list will shut down at the end of May, and its replacement, **statalist.org** is already up and running.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

From |
Randall Lewis <randallalewis@gmail.com> |

To |
statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu |

Subject |
Re: st: pweight question |

Date |
Thu, 29 Apr 2010 17:31:26 -0700 (PDT) |

Hi Stas-- Should I really think about pweights as stratified sampling (i.e., is this how people generally think about them)? Or should I think of them as 1/f(i) where f(i) is the probability of drawing that individual from the population? You seem to have described it in the former way, rather than the latter. Or does it matter? (I'm pretty sure it should matter for some estimators--like if you were trying to compute the median of an RV, x, and had stratified sampled 100 observations according to each percentile, your estimate of the median would have a much different S.E. than if you had just sampled individuals randomly, via simple random sampling. Any thoughts? --Randall ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stas Kolenikov" <skolenik@gmail.com> To: statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2010 2:47:37 PM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific Subject: Re: st: pweight question On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 3:03 PM, Michael I. Lichter <mlichter@buffalo.edu> wrote: > The scale of the weights (what they sum to) doesn't tell you whether or not > they are pweights. That's not quite right. Properly scaled probability weights should sum up to the population size. This however is only relevant when you estimate -total-s. If you run pretty much any other analysis (means, ratios, proportions, any sort of regressions), then the scale of the weights cancels out. I would grind my teeth at the pweights that are scaled to the sample size, and maybe make some mental comments about the data provider, but won't be bothered very much by this nuisance. The scaling of the weights begins to matter again with multilevel data, in which the scaling is known to affect the accuracy of the variance component estimates. -- Stas Kolenikov, also found at http://stas.kolenikov.name Small print: I use this email account for mailing lists only. * * 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/ * * 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/

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: st: pweight question***From:*Stas Kolenikov <skolenik@gmail.com>

- Prev by Date:
**Re: st: pweight question** - Next by Date:
**Re: st: pweight question** - Previous by thread:
**Re: st: pweight question** - Next by thread:
**Re: st: pweight question** - Index(es):