RE: st: RE: AW: RE: AW: recode 9, 99, 999,..., into missing

["Martin Weiss" <martin.weiss1@gmx.de>]

<>

Just to be sure, we are talking about the "programming if" here -help
ifcmd-, not the qualifier, the source of much confusion in the past on the
list. 

-su, mean- leaves behind a scalar value for the maximum, and the ifs check
on its range. So there is only one "correct" answer per loop iteration to
the if/else, and this one is executed. For the -if- qualifier, nothing much
would change, as discussed earlier, only the code would be executed more
frequently, i.e. _N times.


HTH
Martin

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu
[mailto:owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu] On Behalf Of Michael McCulloch
Sent: Montag, 17. Mai 2010 19:14
To: statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu
Subject: Re: st: RE: AW: RE: AW: recode 9, 99, 999,..., into missing

Thanks Nick, this helped me understand the code. Am I correct then to  
understand that:
. if r(max)<=9 mvdecode `var', mv(9)
  	means: "change all values of 9 to missing when 9 is the max of the  
range"

. else if inrange(r(max),10,99) mvdecode `var', mv(99)
	means: "change all values of 99 to missing when the range is 10 to
99"

. else if inrange(r(max),100,999) mvdecode `var', mv(999)
	means: "change all values of 999 to missing when the range is 100 to

999"

. else mvdecode `var', mv(9999)
	means: "change all values of 9999 to missing"

Michael


On May 17, 2010, at 9:58 AM, Nick Cox wrote:

> 99 isn't changed because there are bigger values in the same  
> variable. Thus, it is assumed that it does not mean missing.
>
> Nick
> n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu
[mailto:owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu 
> ] On Behalf Of Michael McCulloch
>
>
> In Martin's code, I noticed that:
> 	for observation #8, var4 is changed to missing,
> 	for observation #4, var3 is not changed to missing.
> This puzzled me because they both have "999" as original value.
>
> It also looks like values "9", "999" and "9999" are changed to
> missing, but not "99".
> Michael
>
> On May 17, 2010, at 9:30 AM, Lachenbruch, Peter wrote:
>
>> Looks good to me.
>>
>> Tony
>>
>> Peter A. Lachenbruch
>> Department of Public Health
>> Oregon State University
>> Corvallis, OR 97330
>> Phone: 541-737-3832
>> FAX: 541-737-4001
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu
[mailto:owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu
>> ] On Behalf Of Martin Weiss
>> Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 12:35 AM
>> To: statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu
>> Subject: AW: st: RE: AW: RE: AW: recode 9, 99, 999,..., into missing
>>
>>
>> <>
>>
>> What does the -mvdecode- solution look like then? Like this?
>>
>>
>>
>> *************
>> clear*
>>
>> inp byte(var1 var2) int(var3 var4)
>> 1 1 1 1
>> 2 2 2 2
>> 3 3 3 3
>> 4 8 99 999
>> 5 9 100 1000
>> 6 10 101 1001
>> 7 11 150 5000
>> 9 12 999 9999
>> end
>>
>> foreach var of varlist *{
>> 	sum `var', mean
>> 	if r(max)<=9 mvdecode `var', mv(9)
>> 	else if inrange(r(max),10,99) mvdecode `var', mv(99)
>> 	else if inrange(r(max),100,999) mvdecode `var', mv(999)
>> 	else mvdecode `var', mv(9999)
>> }
>>
>> li, noo
>> *************
>>
>>
>>
>> HTH
>> Martin
>>
>>
>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>> Von: owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu
>> [mailto:owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu] Im Auftrag von Steve
>> Samuels
>> Gesendet: Montag, 17. Mai 2010 03:00
>> An: statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu
>> Betreff: Re: st: RE: AW: RE: AW: recode 9, 99, 999,..., into missing
>>
>> Mandy, if you know this much about each variable, I see no advantaqe
>> or necessity to your approach.  -mvdecode- appears to be superior in
>> every way.  It is not only more direct,  clearer, and  will  handle
>> all the other "non-data" codes. Clarity is very important: other
>> people (and you, perhaps, in the future) will be able to understand
>> your Stata statements without any lengthy explanation.  None of the
>> other solutions can claim that.
>>
>> Steve
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 8:33 PM, Amanda Fu <mandy.fu1@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Dear Mr. Weiss and Lachenbruch,
>>>
>>> I am sorry that I should be more clear when describing my question.
>>> In
>>> my opinion, I need to be careful about this problem : for example,
>>> for
>>> a variable  that has 10 scales, the 9 value means a real scale and  
>>> 99
>>> in that case means "not answered".
>>>
>>> The pattern is like this:
>>> (1) if the maximum value  of a variable is smaller than 9 , then the
>>> "not answered" takes the value 9;
>>> (2) if the maximum value  of a variable is smaller than 99 but
>>> greater
>>> than 10, then the "not answered"   takes the value 99;
>>> (3) if the maximum value  of a variable is smaller than 999 but
>>> greater than 100, then the "not answered"  takes the value 999;
>>> and so on.
>>>
>>> (And you are absolutely right for the reminder that there are values
>>> such as 7,8, 98, or 97 to indicate "refused to answer" "invalid
>>> answer". Here I would like to keep focus on one example of "not
>>> answered" , because the other values could be dealt with using the
>>> same way.)
>>>
>>> Thanks for help from both of you!
>>>
>
> *
> *   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/


Best wishes,

Michael McCulloch, LAc MPH PhD
Pine Street Foundation
124 Pine Street
San Anselmo, CA 94960-2674
tel:	415-407-1357
fax: 	206-338-2391


*
*   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/