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: AW: Missing F statistics.


From   natasha agarwal <agarwana2@googlemail.com>
To   statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu
Subject   Re: st: AW: Missing F statistics.
Date   Tue, 22 Jun 2010 13:35:56 +0100

Hi there,

I have read the material available on the archive.

The solutions provided were to include or define the clusters in a
different fashion so that the number of clusters are more than the
number of constrains in austin's reply on

http://www.stata.com/statalist/archive/2008-07/msg00188.html

But in situations where there are no other way to define the clusters
and hence the number of constrains are more than the number of
clusters, can one still report with the results obtained with the
missing F value? As far as I understand it won't be right to report
such results as (1) number of clusters is not going to infinity, 50;
or (2) there aren't 20 large balanced clusters; (3) M-k also does not
go to infinity.

Is there any other solution to the problem?

Thanks
Natasha
*
*   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