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
David Hoaglin <email@example.com>
Re: st: weights
Wed, 15 May 2013 15:17:52 -0400
It would be helpful to hear from others who have more experience with
the various types of weights, but I doubt that you can determine, from
only the numerical values of the weights in your data, which type of
weight they are. The person who created the dataset should have
documented the process that produced the weights and thus explained
the type of weight.
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 6:15 PM, 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: