|Date: ||Wed, 28 Jun 2000 22:29:00 -0400|
|Reply-To: ||Muyiwa Oladosu <oladosu@EXCELONLINE.COM>|
|Sender: ||"SPSSX(r) Discussion" <SPSSX-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>|
|From: ||Muyiwa Oladosu <oladosu@EXCELONLINE.COM>|
|Subject: ||Re: Weight Determination (fwd)|
|Content-Type: ||text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"|
Thanks to everyone who spared some time to enlighten me on weighting issues.
This list serve is undoubtedly a rich reservoir of knowledge. I now have
enough info to assist me with weighting. Thanks once more.
Click here for Free Video!!
From: Tim Dunsworth <Tim.Dunsworth@METROSTATE.EDU>
To: SPSSX-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU <SPSSX-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
Date: Wednesday, June 28, 2000 10:54 AM
Subject: Re: Weight Determination (fwd)
>Yes, you're right Curt - it was a geezer lapse on my part that I didn't
catch because my incorrectly computed weights still managed to preserve the
total sample size (125 + 375 = 500, while the correct numbers are 100 + 400
= 500). Thanks for catching the error.
>>>> firstname.lastname@example.org 06/27 6:39 PM >>>
>> There are several types of weights in common use. Hector's reply uses one
>definition that has the advantage that all statistics (eg. cumulative
>of cases up to some observed value of a numeric variable) are direct
>estimates of the corresponding population values, but it has the
>disadvantage of increasing the apparent sample size and thus affecting
>> If you want to preserve the same total sample size, calculate the weights
>as the population proportion of each group divided by the sample proportion
>of that same group. For urban dwellers that would be:
>> W = (1000/4000) / (250/500) = 0.5
>I'm trying to understand your recommendation. How do you define population
>proportion? In this case, I would think that population proportion =
>(1,000/5,000), and therefore the weight for urban dwellers would be:
>(1000/5000)/ (250/500) = .4.
>And the weight for rural dwellers would be (4,000/5,000)/(250/500) = 1.6.
>Am I on or off target?