Notice: On April 23, 2014, Statalist moved from an email list to a forum, based at statalist.org.
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: st: means compairison with weights and unequal variance
From
Nick Cox <[email protected]>
To
"'[email protected]'" <[email protected]>
Subject
RE: st: means compairison with weights and unequal variance
Date
Wed, 23 Nov 2011 17:21:36 +0000
I use gmail myself, and don't get classified as spam.
Not a good day for me, after being called twice a "prickly guy from Northern England" by that President guy from central Texas.
Especially as I'm Welsh.
Nick
[email protected]
Barbro Widerstedt
Sorry, I did not see your earlier answer -- for some reason your
mails are archived as spam in gmail.
Thank you, I'll consider your answer. And try to de-spam you :)
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 9:40 AM, Nick Cox <[email protected]> wrote:
> See also the suggestions made earlier in the thread at
>
> http://stata.com/statalist/archive/2011-11/msg01010.html
>
> Nick
>
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 8:16 AM, Barbro Widerstedt <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Now I feel a bit stupid -- of course. It is what I do for other
>> outcomes, and the strategy should be as valid in this case... I'll
>> have a look and see if they give me the same conclusion at p<0.05
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 7:45 PM, Ariel Linden, DrPH
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Why not simply use -regress- and the weight generated in -cem- (cem_weights)
>>> as the aweight with robust se? This is the approach suggested by the
>>> authors. See:
>>>
>>> Stefano M. Iacus, Gary King, and Giuseppe Porro, "Matching for Causal
>>> Inference Without Balance Checking", copy at
>>> <http://gking.harvard.edu/files/abs/cem-abs.shtml>
>>>
*
* 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/