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: ICE and two conditions
From
Morten Frydenberg <[email protected]>
To
"[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject
RE: st: ICE and two conditions
Date
Thu, 1 Dec 2011 07:57:16 +0100
Thanks Daniel
I have taken a look at the mi version in Stata 12 and it looks like
that might solve my problem.
morten
----------------------------------------------------------
Morten Frydenberg Department of Biostatistics
Associate professor Aarhus University
[email protected] Bartholins Allé 2
Phone +45 871 67992 8000 Aarhus
Fax +45 871 67305 Denmark
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of daniel klein
Sent: 29. november 2011 15:40
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: st: ICE and two conditions
Morten,
I do not have access to Stata at the moment, so I cannot replicate your problem. However, I would like to point out two things.
If you are using Stata 12, there is no need to use -ice- since Stata's
-mi- supports imputationa via chained-equations in the current version. (It is based on the work of Royston). Further, if you use Stata's -mi-, you do not need to specify conditions, as Stata will only impute "hard missings" (i.e. sysmiss). Create soft missing values (i.e. one of .a, .b, ..., .z) in your original dataset according to your conditions, as these values will not be imputed.
Best
Daniel
*
* 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/