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 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]

RE: st: RE: bcskew0 transform back


From   "Nick Cox" <n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk>
To   <statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu>
Subject   RE: st: RE: bcskew0 transform back
Date   Tue, 18 May 2010 17:55:45 +0100

This seems doubly problematic. The fact is that -bcskew0- entails
estimation of a parameter. I don't know how that meshes with the
imputation. It sounds as if you should be doing that on each imputed
dataset. Using the same constant on all sounds wrong. Others can improve
on my visceration. 

Personally I think the whole Box-Cox methodology, despite its splendid
name, to be very oversold. 

-ice- is a user-written program from .... 

Nick 
n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk 

raoul reulen

I failed to mention that I am using the transformed variable in a
multiple imputation model (using ice) and impute missing values. After
the imputation I then want to transfer the imputed variable back.

*
*   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/


© Copyright 1996–2014 StataCorp LP   |   Terms of use   |   Privacy   |   Contact us   |   Site index