As I mentioned in the post yesterday, I couldn't find anything explicit that setting
missing-value likelihood residuals to zero is standard practice.
But in fairness to David Collett, I think that he was justified in setting the missing-value
residual to zero in this case, if that's what he did: the observed value was 1 and the
predicted value was 1; that's a residual of zero.
The hitch in the whole matter arose because the Pearson residual takes the absolute
residual and divides by the standard error of the predicted value, which in this case is
zero.
Joseph Coveney
*
* For searches and help try:
* http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/res/findit.html
* http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
* http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/
