Bookmark and Share

Notice: On April 23, 2014, Statalist moved from an email list to a forum, based at

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

st: re: RM ANOVA, was SPSS vs. Stata

From   "Airey, David C" <david.airey@Vanderbilt.Edu>
To   "" <>
Subject   st: re: RM ANOVA, was SPSS vs. Stata
Date   Mon, 2 Aug 2010 10:55:20 -0500


> What SPSS still maintains over Stata is better ANOVA routines,
> particularly Repeated-Measures fixed-factor designs.  Stata treats RM
> designs a bit strangely, I believe because it seems to "wrap" ANOVA code
> around Regression methods.  It's non-intuitive and can provide results
> that aren't typical of RM ANOVA (consider how it uses full-n for
> fixed-factor RM ANOVA without listwise elimination of subjects who are
> missing an observation).  I would much prefer to see Stata invest in
> re-working their ANOVA code and analyses so that it is more consistant
> with SAS or SPSS methodologies, offers more in terms of assumption
> testing (ex. Sphericity tests), and is more intuitive.

Michael Mitchell pointed this out in his head to head to head comparison of Stata, SPSS, and SAS some years ago in a report posted at ATS UCLA.

I don't know if this is true anymore with version 11.1 of xtmixed and the margins functionality. This book shows use of xtmixed in designed experiments:


BTW, you can test sphericity in Stata directly with the mvtest command or by asking for the univariate rm-anova corrections when you use the "repeated(varlist)" option to anova.

Doesn't SPSS wrap GLM for its RM-ANOVA routines?

Can you post an example of what you are talking about, re listwise elimination? I don't have SPSS.

*   For searches and help try:

© Copyright 1996–2017 StataCorp LLC   |   Terms of use   |   Privacy   |   Contact us   |   Site index