Notice: On March 31, it was **announced** that Statalist is moving from an email list to a **forum**. The old list will shut down at the end of May, 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: Homogeneity of ordinal Variabel |

Date |
Tue, 21 May 2013 17:56:01 +0100 |

You can calculate any number of measures of heterogeneity here. The same measures crop up again and again in economics, sociology, ecology, etc., etc. under headings such as concentration, inequality, diversity, etc., etc. Two of the simplest are the Gini-Turing-Hirschman-Simpson-Herfindahl-Good measure based on sum of squared proportions p^2 and the Shannon-Wiener measure based on sum of p ln p. People are welcome to insert other authors' names according to taste and historical knowledge. Different formulas are to be considered equivalent if a one-to-one correspondence can be identified between results. The idea that mean and SD are out of order here possibly stems from exposure to some version of the Stevens doctrine that measurement scale determines legitimate statistical properties. Well, yes and no. In practice I predict that any ordering shown by SD will be matched roughly by one shown by the Gini or entropy measures. I like the versions of both of those that are "numbers equivalents", i.e. they are recast to have an interpretation on the same scale as the number of categories. Here are some sample calculations . sysuse auto , clear (1978 Automobile Data) . tab rep78, matcell(freq) Repair | Record 1978 | Freq. Percent Cum. ------------+----------------------------------- 1 | 2 2.90 2.90 2 | 8 11.59 14.49 3 | 30 43.48 57.97 4 | 18 26.09 84.06 5 | 11 15.94 100.00 ------------+----------------------------------- Total | 69 100.00 . mata ------------------------------------------------- mata (type end to exit) --------------- : freq = st_matrix("freq") : freq 1 +------+ 1 | 2 | 2 | 8 | 3 | 30 | 4 | 18 | 5 | 11 | +------+ : p = freq / sum(freq) : sum(p:^2) .2967863894 : -sum(p :* ln(p)) 1.357855957 : 1/sum(p:^2) 3.369426752 : exp(-sum(p :* ln(p))) 3.887848644 So -rep78- has heterogeneity 3.37 and 3.89 on these measures. (If every car had the same repair record, both measures would return 1. A distribution 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 would return 5.) There is an enormous literature. Here is one of many entry points: http://exploringdatablog.blogspot.co.uk/2011/04/interestingness-measures.html Nick njcoxstata@gmail.com On 21 May 2013 17:29, Meulemann Max <mmeulemann@ethz.ch> wrote: > Hi, > > I am interested in showing that the respondent´s assessments on one item of my set are more heterogeneous than for the others. > > Im using stata 12 > > I have 6 items describing how important respondents found certain issues to be on a scale of 1 "not important" to 4 "very important". > Looking at the data and the frequency table, I have the feeling that the agreement on one item is much less than on the other. > Else I would say there is more divergence in the answers, which is roughly shown by the summary tables, although I should not really > look at means and standard deviations of ordinal variables. > > > Variable | Obs Mean Std. Dev. Min Max > -------------+-------------------------------------------------------- > c0101 | 429 3.69697 .5690746 1 4 > c0102 | 425 3.207059 .8872509 1 4 > c0103 | 428 3.429907 .7385301 1 4 > c0104 | 411 2.474453 1.010291 1 4 > c0105 | 430 3.430233 .6885798 1 4 > c0106 | 430 3.590698 .665435 1 4 > > I would believe that c0104 is more controversial issues than c0101. > I yet have not found a way to express my above given statement in a meaningful statistical way. Is there a way to test my statement? * * 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: Stata's two-step treatreg command***From:*Bob Reed <bob.reed@canterbury.ac.nz>

**Re: st: Stata's two-step treatreg command***From:*Steve Samuels <sjsamuels@gmail.com>

**Re: st: Stata's two-step treatreg command***From:*Austin Nichols <austinnichols@gmail.com>

**st: Homogeneity of ordinal Variabel***From:*"Meulemann Max" <mmeulemann@ethz.ch>

- Prev by Date:
**st: Homogeneity of ordinal Variabel** - Next by Date:
**st: 3-way continuous interaction - comparing simple slopes** - Previous by thread:
**st: Homogeneity of ordinal Variabel** - Next by thread:
**st: Trouble using - estimates store-** - Index(es):