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" <statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu> |

Subject |
Re: st: ladder question for right-skewed variable |

Date |
Fri, 26 Apr 2013 19:45:46 +0100 |

Three assertions based on a mix of experience and prejudice: 1. The best way to check for normality is with -qnorm-. Even if normality is not your reference case, asymmetry will show up clearly on a -qnorm- graph. 2. 90% of the time, choosing transformations boils down to whether three possible transformations are any use, root, logarithm or reciprocal. 3. So, do-it-yourself is easy: gen rtmyvar = sqrt(myvar) gen logmyvar = log(myvar) gen recmyvar = 1/myvar qnorm myvar, name(a) qnorm rtmyvar, name(b) qnorm logmyvar, name(c) qnorm recmyvar, name(d) Not universally known fact: Giving a name to a graph means that it sticks around until _you_ close it. So, you have four graphs on your monitor. Arrange them with your mouse so you can compare. Usually it's easy to pick what works best, without any formal machinery. (Yes, I know about -gladder-, but this is simpler in practice.) Nick njcoxstata@gmail.com On 26 April 2013 19:20, Nick Cox <njcoxstata@gmail.com> wrote: > Just to underline that kurtosis in your variable was calculated by > -summarize- 108. That's BIG. No wonder -sktest- can't cope. > Nick > njcoxstata@gmail.com > > > On 26 April 2013 19:17, Nick Cox <njcoxstata@gmail.com> wrote: >> That's not quite "no transformations appeared in the output" as >> -ladder- is signalling P-values for some cases. >> >> But I readily agree that -ladder- is not doing a good job here at all. >> >> In fact, I am now reminded of evident -ladder- problems shown in a >> recent thread starting at >> http://www.stata.com/statalist/archive/2013-02/msg00862.html >> >> I can't find a public email, even though I thought I posted on this, >> but my impression from looking at the code is that -ladder- is >> essentially fragile. The real problem here is within -sktest-. It can >> break down, it seems, for large sample sizes and/or large deviations >> from Gaussianity. Then it bounces back missings. >> >> I think you just need to abandon -ladder-. It's not essential. You >> don't need _any_ test to tell you that some transformation will help >> if the goal is to reduce asymmetry, and there are only a few credible >> alternatives. >> >> As David and I pointed out, log transformation should work quite well >> for your data, >> >> but but but: (my suggestion; David may not agree) why transform at >> all? Your solutions start with -poisson- (or, for consenting adults, >> -nbreg-). >> >> BTW, -ladder- is a command, not a function, and in Stata ne'er the >> twain shall meet. >> >> Nick >> njcoxstata@gmail.com >> >> >> On 26 April 2013 18:55, Gabriel Nelson <lgabrielnelson@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Thanks Nick, yes exactly, my question is why the ladder function fails >>> to provide any chi-square values here. I'll attach the Stata output >>> here: >>> >>> . ladder disp_2000 >>> >>> Transformation formula chi2(2) P(chi2) >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> cubic dis~2000^3 . . >>> square dis~2000^2 . . >>> identity dis~2000 . . >>> square root sqrt(dis~2000) . 0.000 >>> log log(dis~2000) . 0.000 >>> 1/(square root) 1/sqrt(dis~2000) . 0.000 >>> inverse 1/dis~2000 . 0.000 >>> 1/square 1/(dis~2000^2) . 0.000 >>> 1/cubic 1/(dis~2000^3) . 0.000 >>> >>> . sum disp_2000, detail >>> >>> Number displaced 2000 (if data unavailable go up >>> to 2003 >>> ------------------------------------------------------------- >>> Percentiles Smallest >>> 1% 1 1 >>> 5% 2 1 >>> 10% 3 1 Obs 1010 >>> 25% 6 1 Sum of Wgt. 1010 >>> >>> 50% 15.5 Mean 281.5297 >>> Largest Std. Dev. 1217.168 >>> 75% 82 9421 >>> 90% 436.5 9505 Variance 1481497 >>> 95% 1251 16255 Skewness 9.012044 >>> 99% 5953 19569 Kurtosis 108.8061 >>> >>> On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Nick Cox <njcoxstata@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Please see my answers too. You have still not given the exact -ladder- >>>> command you used or its output, so it is really difficult to know what >>>> is going on. * * 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/

**Follow-Ups**:**st: st :Endogenous variables in Survival analysis***From:*Ayman Farahat <ayman.farahat@yahoo.com>

**Re: st: ladder question for right-skewed variable***From:*Gabriel Nelson <lgabrielnelson@gmail.com>

**References**:**st: ladder question for right-skewed variable***From:*Gabriel Nelson <lgabrielnelson@gmail.com>

**Re: st: ladder question for right-skewed variable***From:*David Hoaglin <dchoaglin@gmail.com>

**Re: st: ladder question for right-skewed variable***From:*Gabriel Nelson <lgabrielnelson@gmail.com>

**Re: st: ladder question for right-skewed variable***From:*Nick Cox <njcoxstata@gmail.com>

**Re: st: ladder question for right-skewed variable***From:*Gabriel Nelson <lgabrielnelson@gmail.com>

**Re: st: ladder question for right-skewed variable***From:*Nick Cox <njcoxstata@gmail.com>

**Re: st: ladder question for right-skewed variable***From:*Nick Cox <njcoxstata@gmail.com>

- Prev by Date:
**Re: st: ladder question for right-skewed variable** - Next by Date:
**st: adding different text to each of a set of graphs** - Previous by thread:
**Re: st: ladder question for right-skewed variable** - Next by thread:
**Re: st: ladder question for right-skewed variable** - Index(es):