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 |
"Lachenbruch, Peter" <Peter.Lachenbruch@oregonstate.edu> |

To |
"'statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu'" <statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu> |

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

Date |
Mon, 17 May 2010 09:30:36 -0700 |

Looks good to me. Tony Peter A. Lachenbruch Department of Public Health Oregon State University Corvallis, OR 97330 Phone: 541-737-3832 FAX: 541-737-4001 -----Original Message----- From: owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu [mailto:owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu] On Behalf Of Martin Weiss Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 12:35 AM To: statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu Subject: AW: st: RE: AW: RE: AW: recode 9, 99, 999,..., into missing <> What does the -mvdecode- solution look like then? Like this? ************* 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 if r(max)<=9 mvdecode `var', mv(9) else if inrange(r(max),10,99) mvdecode `var', mv(99) else if inrange(r(max),100,999) mvdecode `var', mv(999) else mvdecode `var', mv(9999) } li, noo ************* HTH Martin -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu [mailto:owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu] Im Auftrag von Steve Samuels Gesendet: Montag, 17. Mai 2010 03:00 An: statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu Betreff: Re: st: RE: AW: RE: AW: recode 9, 99, 999,..., into missing Mandy, if you know this much about each variable, I see no advantaqe or necessity to your approach. -mvdecode- appears to be superior in every way. It is not only more direct, clearer, and will handle all the other "non-data" codes. Clarity is very important: other people (and you, perhaps, in the future) will be able to understand your Stata statements without any lengthy explanation. None of the other solutions can claim that. Steve On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 8:33 PM, Amanda Fu <mandy.fu1@gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Mr. Weiss and Lachenbruch, > > I am sorry that I should be more clear when describing my question. In > my opinion, I need to be careful about this problem : for example, for > a variable that has 10 scales, the 9 value means a real scale and 99 > in that case means "not answered". > > The pattern is like this: > (1) if the maximum value of a variable is smaller than 9 , then the > "not answered" takes the value 9; > (2) if the maximum value of a variable is smaller than 99 but greater > than 10, then the "not answered" takes the value 99; > (3) if the maximum value of a variable is smaller than 999 but > greater than 100, then the "not answered" takes the value 999; > and so on. > > (And you are absolutely right for the reminder that there are values > such as 7,8, 98, or 97 to indicate "refused to answer" "invalid > answer". Here I would like to keep focus on one example of "not > answered" , because the other values could be dealt with using the > same way.) > > Thanks for help from both of you! > > Best regards, > 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/ > -- 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/ * * 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: RE: AW: RE: AW: recode 9, 99, 999,..., into missing***From:*Michael McCulloch <mm@pinestreetfoundation.org>

**Re: st: RE: AW: RE: AW: recode 9, 99, 999,..., into missing***From:*Michael McCulloch <mm@pinestreetfoundation.org>

**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>

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

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

**Re: st: RE: AW: RE: AW: recode 9, 99, 999,..., into missing***From:*Steve Samuels <sjsamuels@gmail.com>

**AW: st: RE: AW: RE: AW: recode 9, 99, 999,..., into missing***From:*"Martin Weiss" <martin.weiss1@gmx.de>

- Prev by Date:
**Re: st: RE: AW: RE: AW: recode 9, 99, 999,..., into missing** - Next by Date:
**Re: st: RE: AW: RE: AW: recode 9, 99, 999,..., into missing** - Previous by thread:
**AW: st: RE: AW: RE: AW: recode 9, 99, 999,..., into missing** - Next by thread:
**Re: st: RE: AW: RE: AW: recode 9, 99, 999,..., into missing** - Index(es):