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: weights
Nick Cox <email@example.com>
Re: st: weights
Tue, 14 May 2013 23:27:57 +0100
Your general questions on weights are best addressed by starting with
the sections on weights in [U] and then looking at the [SVY] manual:
these manuals are included as .pdf documents with modern versions of
I doubt that even sampling experts on this list (I am not one) can
make authoritative statements about your data from what you tell us.
Please do read http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/resources/statalist-faq/#others
before your next post.
On 14 May 2013 23:15, Cheng, Hsu-Chih <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Dear Statalist veterans,
> Stata offers four options of weights: frequency weights, analytic weights, sampling weights, and importance weights. Winship and Radbill (1994) suggest that un-weighted regression is preferred because it is less biased and more consistent than the weighted analysis, but their discussion is applicable only to sampling weights. If the values of weights in my data center around 1 (some values are smaller than 1; some are greater), is it possible that these are still sampling weights? Or, if the weights in the data are analytic or importance weights, what are the properties of using these weights in regression analysis? Any suggestion or direction to read more on this issue is highly appreciate.
> * 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/
* For searches and help try: