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: RE: RE: bootstrap reject()

From   Nick Cox <>
To   "''" <>
Subject   RE: st: RE: RE: bootstrap reject()
Date   Tue, 1 Nov 2011 14:38:41 +0000

I'd endorse the spirit of this, but the syntax should I think be in terms of r(costdiff): -bootstrap- sees r(costdiff) as input and produces costdiff as output in this case. 


Maarten Buis
Sent: 01 November 2011 14:18
Subject: Re: st: RE: RE: bootstrap reject()

On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 3:04 PM, Shehzad Ali <> wrote:
> I wasn't sure, however, about the syntax of the -reject()- option. It does not seem to work with -if- statements only. If we want to 'reject if costdiff>1000', what would be the best way to do this using the -reject- option?

The quote the helpfile of -bootstrap-: "reject(exp) identifies an
expression that indicates when results should be rejected.  When exp
is true, the resulting values are reset to missing values." So you
just use the expression you already stated (i.e. without -if-).
However, this looks extremely dodgey: that way you can make your
standard error as small as you like. My take on this is that your
collegue will just have to live with the fact that his/her effects are
not significant, or at the very least use Nick's suggestion so that
the readers can choose for themselves whether they believe the dodgey
or the real estimates...

*   For searches and help try:

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