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 |
Nick Cox <njcoxstata@gmail.com> |

To |
statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu |

Subject |
Re: st: Mokken scaling procedure - output |

Date |
Tue, 12 Feb 2013 16:56:41 +0000 |

That's -graph- not -raph-. On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 4:53 PM, Nick Cox <njcoxstata@gmail.com> wrote: > This is way outside my experience, but I would not exclude plotting > the data, seemingly unusual in this territory. In this case, -graph > matrix- might be helpful but given the ordinal scale jittering would > be essential. > > clear > set obs 1000 > forval j = 1/5 { > gen y`j' = floor(6 * runiform()) > } > raph matrix y?, jitter(1) > > gives a kind of benchmark for a null extreme. > > Nick > > On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Laura Maria Schwirz <schwirzl@tcd.ie> wrote: >> I thought so too. I was quite surprised to get such high Loevinger >> coefficients but this might be due to a rather large sample size of 3,300? >> Also, does it mean that if they all lie above the critical value of 0.3 >> that these variables (or traits in this case) form one dimension? I.e. if >> two of them were lower than 0.3, the other two would still form such a >> dimension? >> >> Many thanks for your advice on this, much appreciated! >> >> Laura >> >> On 12 February 2013 16:26, JVerkuilen (Gmail) <jvverkuilen@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 10:42 AM, Laura Maria Schwirz <schwirzl@tcd.ie> wrote: >>>> Apologies. I had some trouble sending the email and I thought the >>>> Stata output caused the problem. Here's the output. I am actually just >>>> reading van Schur's article and find it quite helpful. >>> >>> Your situation is exactly what Mokken scaling is good at but read >>> through those citations to make sure you feel solid about what the >>> output is. >>> >>> I'd worry about a halo effect on these due to the likely content. >>> Those are some VERY high H stats. * * For searches and help try: * http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search * http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/resources/statalist-faq/ * http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/

**References**:**st: Mokken scaling procedure - output***From:*Laura Maria Schwirz <schwirzl@tcd.ie>

**Re: st: Mokken scaling procedure - output***From:*"JVerkuilen (Gmail)" <jvverkuilen@gmail.com>

**Re: st: Mokken scaling procedure - output***From:*Laura Maria Schwirz <schwirzl@tcd.ie>

**Re: st: Mokken scaling procedure - output***From:*"JVerkuilen (Gmail)" <jvverkuilen@gmail.com>

**Re: st: Mokken scaling procedure - output***From:*Laura Maria Schwirz <schwirzl@tcd.ie>

**Re: st: Mokken scaling procedure - output***From:*Nick Cox <njcoxstata@gmail.com>

- Prev by Date:
**Re: st: Mokken scaling procedure - output** - Next by Date:
**Re: st: GLLAMM versus XTMEPOISSON** - Previous by thread:
**Re: st: Mokken scaling procedure - output** - Next by thread:
**Re: st: Mokken scaling procedure - output** - Index(es):