LISTSERV at the University of Georgia
Menubar Imagemap
Home Browse Manage Request Manuals Register
Previous messageNext messagePrevious in topicNext in topicPrevious by same authorNext by same authorPrevious page (January 2004, week 3)Back to main SAS-L pageJoin or leave SAS-L (or change settings)ReplyPost a new messageSearchProportional fontNon-proportional font
Date:         Wed, 21 Jan 2004 10:49:44 -0800
Reply-To:     John Fava <jmfava@MSN.COM>
Sender:       "SAS(r) Discussion" <SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
From:         John Fava <jmfava@MSN.COM>
Subject:      PROC GLM's "Class" statement (vs. using dummy coding for qual
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1


I'm having difficulty understanding how or when the "Class" statement in PROC GLM (for ANOVA) is used versus simply "dummy-coding" categorical variables for use in the model (also in PROC GLM). Is the "class" statement simply a easier way of dummy coding categorical data, or is there more to this?

Both methods appear to "work," but the output is definitely not comparable. What is the difference?

The data set that I'm working with includes a "test" group, with a "control" group matched up based on several characteristics (four other factors, all categorical, including sex, gender, age and marital status). The dependent variable is continuous. I should also say that this is not a true experimental design ... the control group was created AFTER the experiment was conducted.

If you can answer the "CLASS" issue, I'd also like to understand exactly what's calculated to come up with the LSMEANS.


John Fava

Back to: Top of message | Previous page | Main SAS-L page