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, statalist.org is already up and running.


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

st: RE: Fuzzy set QCA output interpretation


From   "Nick Cox" <n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk>
To   <statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu>
Subject   st: RE: Fuzzy set QCA output interpretation
Date   Tue, 8 Jun 2010 19:29:52 +0100

You ran the same question on 1 June and got no reply. That outcome doesn't rule out a reply this time, but my guess is that this is a case of (a) a command used rarely and (b) authors who are not members of Statalist. A third guess, (c) somebody might want to play with this to find out, is not panning out for you. 

Your best bet is to approach the program authors directly. 

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

Brooking Gatewood

We¹ve got 38 cases and are using fuzzy set QCA for analysis
And are wondering why we get only 7-11 cases (depending on the number of
variables we include in our causal recipe) with the "tab
bestfit" command. According to Longest and Vaisey, Stata Journal 2009, the
only reason this should happen is missing data or cases scoring .5 on all
individual predictor sets, and, accounting for these cases, we should get
22.  Why aren¹t we getting more cases in our best fit, and how should this
be interpreted?? 

[basic code we used:
fuzzy A C Y D T L,sett(yvv yvn) sigonly greater(col1) common
reduce
tab bestfit]

*
*   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