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

# Re: st: limitations of "generate" with missing data

 From Nick Cox To statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu Subject Re: st: limitations of "generate" with missing data Date Mon, 11 Apr 2011 23:15:24 +0100

```The underlying problem can be illustrated by sorting. Suppose we
-sort- a variable, which contains missings, in numeric order. Where do
the missings go? We need a decision: either missing is regarded as
larger than any non-missing, or smaller than any non-missing. Stata

Any way, here are some solutions:

(5. don't throw away information by turning a measure into an indicator!)

Nick

On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 11:01 PM, Michael Costello
<michaelavcostello@gmail.com> wrote:
> Statalisters,
>
> I recently ran into a problem with the following dataset:
>
>  score_pcnt |      Freq.     Percent        Cum.
> ------------+-----------------------------------
>          0 |        150        7.50        7.50
>         .2 |         85        4.25       11.75
>         .4 |         97        4.85       16.60
>         .6 |         82        4.10       20.70
>         .8 |         72        3.60       24.30
>          1 |         15        0.75       25.05
>          . |      1,499       74.95      100.00
> ------------+-----------------------------------
>      Total |      2,000      100.00
>
> The high number of "missing" is by design, a by-product of a
> horizontally structured dataset that I have yet to rectify.
>
> When I run the command:
> I am left with
>
> score_pcnt8 |
>          0 |      Freq.     Percent        Cum.
> ------------+-----------------------------------
>          0 |        414       20.70       20.70
>          1 |      1,586       79.30      100.00
> ------------+-----------------------------------
>      Total |      2,000      100.00
>
> As you can see, the 87 values above .79 were set to 1, but so were all
> the missing values!!  I have toyed with the code a bit, trying
> variations such as
> but that converts all the missing to 0's, which is only marginally better.
>
> So the question is, is there some way to use a single, precise line of
> code to create eighty-seven 1's, four hundred fourteen  0's and 1499
> Missing values in one dummy variable?  I know I can do it with several
> lines of code, but I'm looking for something more concise, as it needs
> to run many hundreds of times.
>

*
*   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/
```