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: means compairison with weights and unequal variance

From   Nick Cox <>
To   "''" <>
Subject   RE: st: means compairison with weights and unequal variance
Date   Wed, 23 Nov 2011 17:21:36 +0000

I use gmail myself, and don't get classified as spam. 

Not a good day for me, after being called twice a "prickly guy from Northern England" by that President guy from central Texas. 
Especially as I'm Welsh. 


Barbro Widerstedt

Sorry, I did not see your earlier answer  -- for some reason your
mails are archived as spam in gmail.

Thank you, I'll consider your answer. And try to de-spam you :)

On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 9:40 AM, Nick Cox <> wrote:
> See also the suggestions made earlier in the thread at
> Nick
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 8:16 AM, Barbro Widerstedt <> wrote:
>> Now I feel a bit stupid -- of course. It is what I do for other
>> outcomes, and the strategy should be as valid in this case... I'll
>> have a look and see if they give me the same conclusion at p<0.05
>> On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 7:45 PM, Ariel Linden, DrPH
>> <> wrote:
>>> Why not simply use -regress- and the weight generated in -cem- (cem_weights)
>>> as the aweight with robust se? This is the approach suggested by the
>>> authors. See:
>>> Stefano M. Iacus, Gary King, and Giuseppe Porro, "Matching for Causal
>>> Inference Without Balance Checking", copy at
>>> <>

*   For searches and help try:

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