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]

From |
Susanna Makela <susanna.m.makela@gmail.com> |

To |
statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu |

Subject |
Re: st: GLLAMM and rescaling sampling weights |

Date |
Fri, 24 Jun 2011 16:14:31 +0530 |

Stas, thanks so much for your response. I'm a little confused though - you say the question arises when there are sampling weights for PSUs and then separate sampling weights for individuals within PSUs - but I only have sampling weights for women within states. Since, as you say, I don't have these weights in DHS, do I not need to worry about weighting at all? Or do the state-level women's weights somehow combine these two? I have also looked at the Pfefferman (1998) paper, but I didn't quite get all of that either... I guess I'll see how things look with option 2 below for now. I was going to use -pwigls-, but that seems to be only for use with two-level models, though rescaling the weights by hand isn't hard. Your response brings up another question: is it bad (as in bad statistical practice/against statistical theory) to model states as a random effect if they are also used for stratification? States aren't really samples from a "population" of all "possible" states in the way that PSUs in the DHS are a sample from all PSUs, so in that sense you could argue against modeling them as random effects - but how does stratification play into it? I thought it would be important to account for states as another level since the PSUs are nested in states, and including state-level variables without that structure could lead to the atomistic fallacy (making incorrect inferences about state-level variables based on individual-level data). Thanks again for your help! Susanna The advice on rescaling the weights is tangly at best. Pfeffermann et. al. (1998, http://www.citeulike.org/user/ctacmo/article/711637) show that the bias of the variance estimates depends on how you define your weights. The question arises in the following situation: you have sampling weights for PSUs, and you have separate sampling weights for individuals within PSUs (which you don't have in DHS, so you can stop reading here unless you are really curious about what Rabe-Hesketh and Skrondal meant in that phrase). Then there's been some inconclusive research into the following options: 1. leave the individual weights as they are (summing up to the size of the PSU) 2. rescale them so that they sum up to the sample size (# of observations sampled from a PSU) 3. rescale them to the so-called "effective" weights so that their sums of squares equals the sample size. (In estimation of the variance components, it is the squares of the weights that matter.) Some papers claim the second option gives the least biased estimates; others, that the third one is the way to go. Other re-weighting options can be entertained, too. See Pfeffermann et. al. (1998) for in-depth analysis. There were also papers by Asparouhov (the primary programmer at Mplus) and Stapleton (multilevel researcher at UMBC), but I am less convinced by these as they review the existing cook-book recipes rather than try to provide a theory-based advice (unlike the Pfeffermann's paper which does derive explicit small sample bias expressions which are more complicated that just the sums of squares of weights, and involve response variables, too). I would tend to think that states are used as stratification variables in DHS, and modeling them as random effects sounds rather odd to me. I would specify my model as children nested in mothers nested in clusters, and would not go above clusters that in the random part of the model (although of course if you have state-specific variables that are needed in your analysis, you should include them in your regression). * * 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/

- Prev by Date:
**Re: st: xtmixed with nonrtolerance. What happens?** - Next by Date:
**st: RE: constant variable as IV in panel?** - Previous by thread:
**Re: st: GLLAMM and rescaling sampling weights** - Next by thread:
**st: deriving the variance-covariance matrix from point estimates and standard errors** - Index(es):