Following Kit's comment,
I confirm, as the author, that -cpcorr- was written deliberately
in this way. At the time of writing, I really wanted to put the onus
on the user to hack -cpcorr- towards what they wanted if they didn't
like that decision.
I don't have plans to add this option. A positive reason for
that is that my -makematrix- already provides the same flexibility.
The syntax is likely to seem rather complicated, but that's because
the program is much more ambitious.
Naturally, anyone is free to clone -cpcorr- and modify to taste.
The Statalist FAQ suggests appropriate etiquette for such
rewriting.
Nick
[email protected]
Kit Baum
> Wendy wrote
>
> The cpcorr command seems the simplest method for now. But it seems to
> use listwise exclusion instead of pairwise for the group of
> correlations, so I am not getting the same results for pairs of
> variables as I get from other weighted correlation commands. Is it
> possible to use pairwise exclusion with cpcorr -- or is there
> some other
> reason for getting different results for pairs of variables
> from pwcorr
> versus cpcorr?
>
> If you comment out the line of cpcorr.ado
>
> if `slash' { markout `touse' `rowvars' }
>
> cpcorr will produce pairwise correlations (and the N reported will be
> the maximum avaiilable for any correlation). The author of
> cpcorr might
> want to add a 'pairwise' option to the routine, � la
>
> if `slash' & ~`pairwise' { markout `touse' `rowvars'}
>
> as I do not see any reason why it would not be sensible to allow
> pairwise correlations to be generated in this context.
*
* 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/
