It's kind of you to thank us all but you do not distinguish between quite different comments.
Others can speak for themselves for Steve (Samuels) and I couldn't see why this would be interesting or useful. (Steve's at liberty to dissent if that's not his view.) In effect, you are integrating twice, as -cumul- is clearly numerical integration of the density function, even though not named as such, and you then integrate once more.
Could you please explain why this is a good idea?
Nick
[email protected]
Padmakumar Sivadasan
Thank you all (Martin, Philippe, Nick, Steve, Maarten, Bob) for your
valuable suggestions!
As suggested, I used -cumul- to calculate the cumulative distributions
and -integ- to calculate the area under the curve..
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 8:22 AM, Padmakumar Sivadasan
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> I am analyzing the performance of companies indicated by a variable
> v1. Variable v1 has a range 0-10 where higher values indicate poorer
> performance. I am attempting to compare the performance of companies
> for the country as a whole and to that at the local level
> (Metropolitan Statistical Area). I am interested not only in the mean
> value of v1 but also the variability of v1. One suggestion I got was
> to compute the cumulative probabilities at the national and local
> levels and then compare the area under the cumulative probability
> distributions at the local level to that at the national level.
>
> I understand that I can use the -cumul- function in Stata to calculate
> the cumulative probabilities but I couldn't find a method to calculate
> the area under the cumulative probability curve. I have two questions
> in this regard
> (1) Is there a way in Stata to calculate the area under cumulative
> probability curve?
> (2) Could someone point me to reference that I can use to read up on
> this method?
*
* For searches and help try:
* http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search
* http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
* http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/
