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 (July 2006)Back to main SPSSX-L pageJoin or leave SPSSX-L (or change settings)ReplyPost a new messageSearchProportional fontNon-proportional font
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 24 Jul 2006 05:52:15 -0700
Reply-To:     Albert-jan Roskam <fomcl@yahoo.com>
Sender:       "SPSSX(r) Discussion" <SPSSX-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
From:         Albert-jan Roskam <fomcl@yahoo.com>
Subject:      weighted numbers
In-Reply-To:  <945D579F76FD5741A043511E6FE99B570A43FE74@TLRUSMNEAGMBX32.ERF.THOMSON.COM>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1

Dear all,

I want to calculate the relative proportions of people within educational categories, stratified by sex and country. I use a standardized weight that corrects for sample selection bias. Could anybody tell me why-oh-why the two methods listed below yield (slightly) different results? The N function of the aggregate counts the weighed number of cases within the break group. So why are the AGGREGATE results identical to the output I get using SUMMARIZE with an UNweighted sample? Am I missing something?

Thanks a lot in advance!

Albert-Jan

weight by w_plus.

** Method 1. compute dummy = 1. summarize tables = dummy by sex by country3 by educat / cells = npct (educat).

** Method 2. aggregate outfile = "d:\temp\tmp.sav" / break = sex country3 educat / n = n. aggregate outfile = * / break = sex country3 / n_tot = n. match files table = * / file = "d:\temp\tmp.sav" / by = sex country3. compute pct = (n / n_tot ) * 100. exe.

__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around


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