|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date index][Thread index]
Re: st: Problem with centile and normal confidence limits
From |
"Isabel Canette, StataCorp LP" <[email protected]> |
To |
[email protected] |
Subject |
Re: st: Problem with centile and normal confidence limits |
Date |
Thu, 06 Sep 2007 17:06:57 -0500 |
James Shaw <james_shaw2004[at]yahoo[dot]com> reported
an inconsistency between the formula used to compute
the normal standard errors for the centiles and the formula
in the entry Manual for the command -centile-.
>> I am having trouble replicating the normal confidence
>> limits produced by -centile-. The manual states that
>> the standard error (Sq) of a given quantile, Cq, may
>> be computed under the assumption of normality using
>> the equation on p. 202 in the Stata Reference Manual
>> (Release 9, A-G). However, I have to multiply Sq by
>> sqrt(n) to get the same endpoints as Stata. My sample
>> code and output are provided below.
James guesses that there may be a typo in the manual
entry, and he is right. The actual formula for the
standard errors in the normal case is:
s_q = sqrt( q(100-q)/n ) * 1/(100*Z)
We will fix this typo in the manual.
The formula also can be found in:
Kendall's Advanced Theory of Statistics, by A. Stuart
and K. Ord, 6th Edition, Edward Arnold. (see formula 10.29
on page 358).
Isabel
icanette[at]stata[dot]com
James Shaw wrote:
> Dear Statalist:
>
> I am having trouble replicating the normal confidence
> limits produced by -centile-. The manual states that
> the standard error (Sq) of a given quantile, Cq, may
> be computed under the assumption of normality using
> the equation on p. 202 in the Stata Reference Manual
> (Release 9, A-G). However, I have to multiply Sq by
> sqrt(n) to get the same endpoints as Stata. My sample
> code and output are provided below.
>
> I am not sure why I cannot replicate Stata's results
> using the equation presented in the manual. Given
> that I can approximate the limits produced by
> -centile, normal- using the bootstrap, I suspect that
> the notation in the manual may be incorrect. I do not
> have access to the original source (Kendall & Stuart)
> and am therefore unable to verify whether or not this
> is the case.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jim
>
>
> . drawnorm y
> . qui: summ y
> . scalar sm1= r(mean)
> . scalar sd1 = r(sd)
> . scalar sn = r(N)
>
> . qui: centile y, normal
> . scalar smd2 = r(c_1)
> . scalar stul = r(ub_1)
> . scalar stll = r(lb_1)
>
> . /* from Stata */
> . scalar li smd2 stul stll
> smd2 = .02788301
> stul = .10364515
> stll = -.04787914
>
> . scalar sq =
> sqrt(50*(100-50))/(100*sn*normalden(smd2,sm1,sd1))
>
> . /* using formula given in manual */
> . scalar ul11 = smd2 + sq*invnormal(.975)
> . scalar ll11 = smd2 - sq*invnormal(.975)
> . scalar li smd2 ul11 ll11
> smd2 = .02788301
> ul11 = .03027881
> ll11 = .0254872
>
> . /* multiplied by sqrt(n) */
> . scalar ul12 = smd2 + sq*invnormal(.975)*sqrt(sn)
> . scalar ll12 = smd2 - sq*invnormal(.975)*sqrt(sn)
> . scalar li smd2 ul12 ll12
> smd2 = .02788301
> ul12 = .10364515
> ll12 = -.04787914
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search
> that gives answers, not web links.
> http://mobile.yahoo.com/mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC
> *
> * 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/
>
*
* 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/