Bookmark and Share

Notice: On April 23, 2014, Statalist moved from an email list to a forum, based at

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: st: Weighted Averages

From   Steven Samuels <[email protected]>
To   [email protected]
Subject   Re: st: Weighted Averages
Date   Sun, 16 Jan 2011 15:46:03 -0500



The variance formula you present has little relation to the true formula, whether for sampling with or without replacement. See for example page 230 of Sharon Lohr. 2009. Sampling: Design and Analysis. Boston, MA: Cengage Brooks/Cole.


Steven J. Samuels
[email protected]
18 Cantine's Island
Saugerties NY 12477
Voice: 845-246-0774
Fax:    206-202-4783

On Jan 15, 2011, at 8:02 PM, Christopher Steiner wrote:

Hello everyone:

I am computing some basic summary statistics with weighted means from
a weighted, but otherwise simple design survey.  When I use the
following commands:

svyset [pweight=weight2]
svy: reg fcost_1

I get a weighted average of "fcost_1" that matches my hand
calculation.  I also receive White "robust" standard errors, which is
fine.  However, when I do a hand calculation of regular standard
errors using the formula:

sigma^2 = [sum(weights*(x-xbar))/sum(weights)] * (N/N-1)

and then divide by sum(weights) to get the standard error, I often
receive *larger* standard errors than the robust estimate.  Is this a
function of the pweights?  Around 10% of the values are also missing,
so is it a function of this?  Or am I doing something incorrectly?

Thank so much,
Christopher Paul Steiner

Christopher Paul Steiner
Third Year Grad Student, Ph.D. Economics
University of California, San Diego
*   For searches and help try:

*   For searches and help try:

© Copyright 1996–2018 StataCorp LLC   |   Terms of use   |   Privacy   |   Contact us   |   Site index