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.

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

From |
Steve Samuels <sjsamuels@gmail.com> |

To |
statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu |

Subject |
Re: st: RE: AW: recode 9, 99, 999,..., into missing |

Date |
Sun, 16 May 2010 13:36:02 -0400 |

A potential problem with depending on -sum- , -r(max)-, and the number of recorded digits is that the highest recorded value of a potential three digit response could be "99" or "099", and this would be mistakenly set to missing. Unlikely, yes, but if it is possible, I don't see any way around partitioning such variables by the number of _possible_ digits and using -mvdecode-, as Tony suggests. Steve On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 11:13 AM, Lachenbruch, Peter <Peter.Lachenbruch@oregonstate.edu> wrote: > Maybe I'm missing the point, but couldn't mvdecode handle this with three calls? > mvdecode var3,mv(9/.) > You may want to consider special missings for notanswered and refuse to answer and etc. > > ________________________________________ > From: owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu [owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu] On Behalf Of Martin Weiss [martin.weiss1@gmx.de] > Sent: Sunday, May 16, 2010 8:10 AM > To: statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu > Subject: st: AW: recode 9, 99, 999,..., into missing > > <> > > 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 > local notanswered = cond((mod(r(max),9)==0),r(max),.) > if !mi(`notanswered') replace `var'=. if `var'==`notanswered' > } > > 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} > where 9 means "not answered" > 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 > 999 means " "not answered" > var4 takes values: {1,2,3,...999,1000,1001,..5000,9999} where 9999 > means " "not answered" > > 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. > Thanks for your time! > > 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/ > * > * 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/ > -- Steven Samuels sjsamuels@gmail.com 18 Cantine's Island Saugerties NY 12477 USA Voice: 845-246-0774 Fax: 206-202-4783 * * 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/

**References**:**st: recode 9, 99, 999,..., into missing***From:*Amanda Fu <mandy.fu1@gmail.com>

**st: RE: AW: recode 9, 99, 999,..., into missing***From:*"Lachenbruch, Peter" <Peter.Lachenbruch@oregonstate.edu>

- Prev by Date:
**st: R: survival analysis forums** - Next by Date:
**RE: AW: st: replace-all can crash do-file** - Previous by thread:
**AW: st: RE: AW: RE: AW: recode 9, 99, 999,..., into missing** - Next by thread:
**st: how to recode when 9,99, 999 indicate real values and missing values for different variables** - Index(es):