Again, a piece of advice: use -mvdecode-
to map those 88s which mean missing to Stata's
numeric missing. Otherwise you'll forget this
fact some of the time.
Nick
[email protected]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected]
> [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Henry DOCTOR
> Sent: 27 April 2004 14:48
> To: '[email protected]'
> Subject: st: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: creating age at first birth from
> birth history data
>
>
>
> There is a variable which isolates those that were born in
> 1988 and those
> with missing values (coded as 88).
>
> 85 | 487 3.08 41.93
> 86 | 526 3.33 45.26
> 87 | 583 3.69 48.95
> 88 | 650 4.12 53.07
> 89 | 525 3.32 56.39
> 90 | 722 4.57 60.96
> 91 | 607 3.84 64.81
> 92 | 610 3.86 68.67
> 93 | 682 4.32 72.99
> 94 | 692 4.38 77.37
> 95 | 700 4.43 81.80
> 96 | 711 4.50 86.30
> 97 | 724 4.58 90.89
> 98 | 638 4.04 94.93
> 99 | 801 5.07 100.00
> ------------+-----------------------------------
> Total | 15,793 100.00
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nick Cox [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: 27 April 2004 12:28
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: st: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: creating age at first birth
> from birth
> history data
>
> I have a substantive query in return, fired
> by idle curiosity.
>
> In your data for -year- (below) there is a big peak in 1988.
>
> On another variable, it seems that "88"
> was used to code missing, as you excluded
> it from tabulation. Is it possible
> that the real 88s for -year- (i.e. born in 1988)
> have got mixed up with missings (coded 88) ?
>
> Nick
> [email protected]
>
*
* 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/
