Bookmark and Share

Notice: On March 31, it was announced that Statalist is moving from an email list to a forum. The old list will shut down on April 23, and its replacement, is already up and running.

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

RE: AW: st: sort of standardization

From   "Lachenbruch, Peter" <>
To   "''" <>
Subject   RE: AW: st: sort of standardization
Date   Thu, 13 May 2010 08:17:01 -0700

I don't think most people would call #3 the range.  I was noting that it gives the number of distinct values possible #2 (i.e. all integers between 1 and 10).  One can look for #1 and it's sometimes useful, but most of us would like to see a range (or maybe interquartile range) as a description of spread.


Peter A. Lachenbruch
Department of Public Health
Oregon State University
Corvallis, OR 97330
Phone: 541-737-3832
FAX: 541-737-4001

-----Original Message-----
From: [] On Behalf Of Nick Cox
Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2010 4:03 AM
Subject: RE: AW: st: sort of standardization

For sure, but who (else) calls this the range? 

That's just (a version of) the number of distinct values. In some moods,
or in some circles, many of us would call it the cardinality. 

A version of, because to spell out the obvious, even with integers there
are at least three definitions that need not give the same numerical

1. Number of distinct values observed. 

2. Number of distinct values possible in principle. 

3. max - min + 1. 

Otherwise put, are we talking different terminology or different


Lachenbruch, Peter

I think Rich is thinking of the number of distinct integers between 1
and 10, while the range is generally defined as the largest minus the

Nick Cox

The word "range" is surely ambiguous, although the ambiguity does not
bite hard. I have no difficulty in saying both that the range is the
interval [1,10] and that the range is the difference 9. Does that differ
from Rich's view? 


Richard Goldstein

look at it this way -- if my min is 1 and my max is 10, then the range
is 10 (it seems to me), not 9 -- i.e., I think of the range as the min
to the max *inclusive* of each endpoint; StataCorp apparently disagrees

On 5/12/10 10:46 AM, Martin Weiss wrote:

> " local range=r(max)-r(min)+1"
> Rich, what does the "+1" term do for the "range"? I took the
definition in
> my code from [R], page 204. Am I missing anything?

Richard Goldstein
> if I understand correctly what you want, I would do the following
> a -foreach- loop:
> summarize variable
> calculate the range from r(min) and r(max)
> divide the old variable by this calculated range inside a -gen-
> e.g.,
> foreach var of varlist .... {
> qui su `var'
> local range=r(max)-r(min)+1
> gen `var'3=`var'/`range'
> }

> On 5/12/10 10:29 AM, Ginevra Biino wrote:

>> I have to standardize many variables (in order to run PCA).
>> Besides generating the n corresponding std(varname) vars, which I
>> already done, I also want to generate n new  variables obtained
>> each variable by its range. Can anybody help me?

*   For searches and help try:

*   For searches and help try:

© Copyright 1996–2015 StataCorp LP   |   Terms of use   |   Privacy   |   Contact us   |   Site index