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]

Re: st: ICE and two conditions


From   Richard Williams <richardwilliams.ndu@gmail.com>
To   statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu
Subject   Re: st: ICE and two conditions
Date   Thu, 01 Dec 2011 10:34:51 -0500

At 09:40 AM 11/29/2011, daniel klein wrote:
Morten,

I do not have access to Stata at the moment, so I cannot replicate
your problem. However, I would like to point out two things.

If you are using Stata 12, there is no need to use -ice- since Stata's
-mi- supports imputationa via chained-equations in the current
version. (It is based on the work of Royston). Further, if you use
Stata's -mi-, you do not need to specify conditions, as Stata will
only impute "hard missings" (i.e. sysmiss). Create soft missing values
(i.e. one of .a, .b, ..., .z) in your original dataset according to
your conditions, as these values will not be imputed.

Do others agree that there is no need to ever use -ice- anymore if you have Stata 12? I'm quite happy to stick with one program if that is possible. But are there situations when you would still prefer -ice-?


-------------------------------------------
Richard Williams, Notre Dame Dept of Sociology
OFFICE: (574)631-6668, (574)631-6463
HOME:   (574)289-5227
EMAIL:  Richard.A.Williams.5@ND.Edu
WWW:    http://www.nd.edu/~rwilliam

*
*   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