It could make perfect sense. It all
depends where you are coming from
and what you want to do with the
correlation.
Nick
[email protected]
Clive Nicholas
> Kenley Barrett wrote:
>
> > I'm sorry, I should have included all possible counts. I have pasted
> > them below. To be sure that I understand properly: this correlation
> > coefficient is due the fact that although a value of 1 for wifelit
> > guarantees a value of 0 for wifeprim, and a value of 1 for wifeprim
> > guarantees a value of 0 for wifelit, a value of 0 for wifeprim does
> > NOT guarantee a value of 1 for wifelit, and a value of 0 for wifelit
> > does NOT guarantee a value of 1 for wifeprim. So the correlation
> > coefficient should not be -1 (as I was thinking earlier). Could you
> > please confirm for me that I'm understanding this right?
> I'm sorry to
> > bother you again; I am new at this, as you can tell.
>
> Surely, it is inappropriate to calculate correlation
> coefficients between
> two dichotomous variables? As Rich and Nick have rightly
> suggested, -tab-
> (with the -all- option) is the way to go here. :)
*
* 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/
