Notice: On April 23, 2014, Statalist moved from an email list to a forum, based at statalist.org.
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
AW: st: RE: AW: RE: AW: recode 9, 99, 999,..., into missing
From
"Martin Weiss" <[email protected]>
To
<[email protected]>
Subject
AW: st: RE: AW: RE: AW: recode 9, 99, 999,..., into missing
Date
Mon, 17 May 2010 19:07:38 +0200
<>
I am not sure what you are puzzled about. I think the result follows very
closely the intial request at
http://www.stata.com/statalist/archive/2010-05/msg00853.html, does it not?
*************
clear*
inp byte(var1 var2) int(var3 var4)
1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2
3 3 3 3
4 8 99 999
5 9 100 1000
6 10 101 1001
7 11 150 5000
9 12 999 9999
end
foreach var of varlist *{
sum `var', mean
if r(max)<=9 mvdecode `var', mv(9)
else if inrange(r(max),10,99) mvdecode `var', mv(99)
else if inrange(r(max),100,999) mvdecode `var', mv(999)
else mvdecode `var', mv(9999)
}
li, noo sep(0)
*************
HTH
Martin
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] Im Auftrag von Michael
McCulloch
Gesendet: Montag, 17. Mai 2010 18:49
An: [email protected]
Betreff: Re: st: RE: AW: RE: AW: recode 9, 99, 999,..., into missing
To correct my reply:
In Martin's code, I noticed that:
for observation #8, var4 is changed to missing,
for observation #4, var3 is not changed to missing.
This puzzled me because they both have "999" as original value.
It also looks like values "9", "999" and "9999" are changed to
missing, but not "99".
Michael
On May 17, 2010, at 9:30 AM, Lachenbruch, Peter wrote:
> Looks good to me.
>
> Tony
>
> Peter A. Lachenbruch
> Department of Public Health
> Oregon State University
> Corvallis, OR 97330
> Phone: 541-737-3832
> FAX: 541-737-4001
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]
> ] On Behalf Of Martin Weiss
> Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 12:35 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: AW: st: RE: AW: RE: AW: recode 9, 99, 999,..., into missing
>
>
> <>
>
> What does the -mvdecode- solution look like then? Like this?
>
>
>
> *************
> clear*
>
> inp byte(var1 var2) int(var3 var4)
> 1 1 1 1
> 2 2 2 2
> 3 3 3 3
> 4 8 99 999
> 5 9 100 1000
> 6 10 101 1001
> 7 11 150 5000
> 9 12 999 9999
> end
>
> foreach var of varlist *{
> sum `var', mean
> if r(max)<=9 mvdecode `var', mv(9)
> else if inrange(r(max),10,99) mvdecode `var', mv(99)
> else if inrange(r(max),100,999) mvdecode `var', mv(999)
> else mvdecode `var', mv(9999)
> }
>
> li, noo
> *************
>
>
>
> HTH
> Martin
>
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: [email protected]
> [mailto:[email protected]] Im Auftrag von Steve
> Samuels
> Gesendet: Montag, 17. Mai 2010 03:00
> An: [email protected]
> Betreff: Re: st: RE: AW: RE: AW: recode 9, 99, 999,..., into missing
>
> Mandy, if you know this much about each variable, I see no advantaqe
> or necessity to your approach. -mvdecode- appears to be superior in
> every way. It is not only more direct, clearer, and will handle
> all the other "non-data" codes. Clarity is very important: other
> people (and you, perhaps, in the future) will be able to understand
> your Stata statements without any lengthy explanation. None of the
> other solutions can claim that.
>
> Steve
>
>
>
> On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 8:33 PM, Amanda Fu <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> Dear Mr. Weiss and Lachenbruch,
>>
>> I am sorry that I should be more clear when describing my question.
>> In
>> my opinion, I need to be careful about this problem : for example,
>> for
>> a variable that has 10 scales, the 9 value means a real scale and 99
>> in that case means "not answered".
>>
>> The pattern is like this:
>> (1) if the maximum value of a variable is smaller than 9 , then the
>> "not answered" takes the value 9;
>> (2) if the maximum value of a variable is smaller than 99 but
>> greater
>> than 10, then the "not answered" takes the value 99;
>> (3) if the maximum value of a variable is smaller than 999 but
>> greater than 100, then the "not answered" takes the value 999;
>> and so on.
>>
>> (And you are absolutely right for the reminder that there are values
>> such as 7,8, 98, or 97 to indicate "refused to answer" "invalid
>> answer". Here I would like to keep focus on one example of "not
>> answered" , because the other values could be dealt with using the
>> same way.)
>>
>> Thanks for help from both of you!
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Amanda
>> *
>> * 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/
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Steven Samuels
> [email protected]
> 18 Cantine's Island
> Saugerties NY 12477
> USA
> Voice: 845-246-0774
> Fax: 206-202-4783
>
> *
> * 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/
>
>
> *
> * 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/
>
> *
> * 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/
Best wishes,
Michael McCulloch, LAc MPH PhD
Pine Street Foundation
124 Pine Street
San Anselmo, CA 94960-2674
tel: 415-407-1357
fax: 206-338-2391
*
* 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/
*
* 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/