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, statalist.org is already up and running.

# st: AW: recode 9, 99, 999,..., into missing

 From "Martin Weiss" To Subject st: AW: recode 9, 99, 999,..., into missing Date Sun, 16 May 2010 17:10:23 +0200

```<>

Not sure whether this is totally foolproof, try it yourself :-) -mod()- just
has to part of the solution, I think:

*************
clear*

inp byte(var1 var2) int(var3 var4)
1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2
3 3 3 3
4 8 99 999
5 9 100 1000
6 10 101 1001
7 11 150 5000
9 12 999 9999
end

foreach var of varlist *{
sum `var', mean
}

list, noo
*************

HTH
Martin

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu
[mailto:owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu] Im Auftrag von Amanda Fu
Gesendet: Sonntag, 16. Mai 2010 16:57
An: statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu
Betreff: st: recode 9, 99, 999,..., into missing

Hi all,

I have seen a couple of times that for some data sets the "not
answered" is coded as 9, 99, 999...... and the number of digit of 9
depends on the number of digit of the maximum  value of the variable.
It is convenient to analyze if recoding them into missing. But the
problem is, for some variables, 9 or 99 might be the real values. I
was wondering if there is any good way to deal with this kind of
recoding.
(In the past we have a discussion thread of using the value label
information such as "not answered"  to deal with this question. What I
am asking here is what if there are no such value labels ?)

For example, here are three variables :
var1 takes values: {1,2,3,4,9}
var2 takes values: {1,2,3,......8,9,10,11,12,99}
where 99 means " "not answered"
var3 takes values: {1,2,3,...99,100,101,..,150,999}           where
var4 takes values: {1,2,3,...999,1000,1001,..5000,9999} where 9999

Now I am thinking to recode int he following way:

foreach var of varlist *  {
sum `var'
replace `var'=. if r(max)<9       & `var'==9
replace `var'=. if r(max)<99     & r(max)>9       & `var'==99
replace `var'=. if r(max)<999   & r(max)>99    & `var'==999
replace `var'=. if r(max)<9999 & r(max)>999 & `var'==9999
}

I would like to hear if anyone has better method instead of this.

Best wishes,
Amanda
*
*   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/
```