Maarten, thanks again for your advise.
Victor.
----- Original Message -----
From: Maarten buis <[email protected]>
Date: Sunday, July 12, 2009 1:02 pm
Subject: Re: st: multiple_imputation
To: [email protected]
> --- On Sun, 12/7/09, Victor Mauricio Herrera wrote:
> > this paper shows that a hierarchical approach
> > is the one I should take in order to correctly deal with
> > missing values in multiple surveys.
>
> I wouldn't take that so literally, hierarchical models
> are a pet-model of Andrew Gelman. This is a sensible
> way of thinking about this issue, but not the only way.
> It is a good thing to have pet-models, these are tools
> of our statistical toolkit that you are very familiar
> with, so it makes sense to use them whenever slightly
> possible. The total number of tools available is just
> too large to be familiar with all them. However, it
> does not mean that somebody's pet model should also be
> the pet-model of somebody else.
>
> I would try to stick with models you can estimate with
> -ice-, as Gelman and collegues haven't implemented
> their model in software. In the end, it is no use to
> think about models you can't estimate. (I actually
> considered writing a program that implemented this
> or a related model and contacted some of the authors
> about it, but I soon abandoned this project, as it would
> be so complicated that finishing it would just cost too
> much time against too little payoff.)
>
> -- Maarten
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Maarten L. Buis
> Institut fuer Soziologie
> Universitaet Tuebingen
> Wilhelmstrasse 36
> 72074 Tuebingen
> Germany
>
> http://home.fsw.vu.nl/m.buis/
> -----------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
> *
> * For searches and help try:
> * http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search
> * http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
> * http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/
>
*
* For searches and help try:
* http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search
* http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
* http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/
