[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date index][Thread index]

From |
Richard Williams <[email protected]> |

To |
[email protected] |

Subject |
Re: st: Puzzled by behavior of -recode varlist (.a/.z=.)- |

Date |
Fri, 23 Apr 2004 23:58:44 -0500 |

At 12:53 PM 4/23/2004 -0400, Renzo Comolli wrote:

One other tidbit to what I had before: Stata 7's -recode- command did not use -inrange-. As a result, Stata 7 and Stata 8 can sometimes produce different results for a -recode- command. Example:Dear Statalist, I don't understand the behavior of . recode varlist (.a/.z=.)

Stata 7:

. list

var1

1. 1

2. 2

3. 4

4. 7

5. 8

6. 9

7. 12

8. .

9. .

10. .

. recode var1 9/. = 9

(4 changes made)

. list

var1

1. 1

2. 2

3. 4

4. 7

5. 8

6. 9

7. 9

8. 9

9. 9

10. 9

The researcher presumably wanted all values that were 9 or greater (where greater includes missing) to be recoded to 9. That is what happened. But in Stata 8, using the exact same data and syntax,

Stata 8:

. recode var1 9/. = 9

(var1: 1 changes made)

. list

+------+

| var1 |

|------|

1. | 1 |

2. | 2 |

3. | 4 |

4. | 7 |

5. | 8 |

|------|

6. | 9 |

7. | 9 |

8. | . |

9. | . |

10. | . |

+------+

Stata 8 interpreted the recode command as saying that any nonmissing values between 9 and positive infinity should be recoded as 9. This is probably not what the researcher intended, i.e. the researcher wanted the 3 missing cases recoded too; but if the researcher did want what actually happened, he or she could have done it with the command

recode var1 9/max = 9

Now, my guess is that Stata 8's recode behavior will only cause problems under rare and esoteric conditions (although I don't think the above is all that unlikely a scenario). Nonetheless, this behavior strikes me as a bug, and at a minimum it should be documented. Renzo's original command, recode varlist (.a/.z=.), winds up being equivalent to -recode varlist (min/max=.)- which does exactly the opposite of what he intended and is certainly not what people would expect.

Also, -inrange-'s behavior (treating missing as being either negative infinity or positive infinity) was ok when there was only one possible value for missing; but now that Stata has a range of MD values it is not so logical.

Whether you can fix these quirks in -recode- and -inrange- without creating other problems, I don't know.

*

* For searches and help try:

* http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/res/findit.html

* http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq

* http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/

**References**:**st: Puzzled by behavior of -recode varlist (.a/.z=.)-***From:*"Renzo Comolli" <[email protected]>

- Prev by Date:
**RE: st: Puzzled by behavior of -recode varlist (.a/.z=.)-** - Next by Date:
**Re: st: Stata (gllamm) benchmarks for different platforms?** - Previous by thread:
**Re: st: Puzzled by behavior of -recode varlist (.a/.z=.)-** - Next by thread:
**RE: st: Puzzled by behavior of -recode varlist (.a/.z=.)-** - Index(es):

© Copyright 1996–2024 StataCorp LLC | Terms of use | Privacy | Contact us | What's new | Site index |