Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 06:28:37 -0700
Reply-To: Albert-jan Roskam <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sender: "SPSSX(r) Discussion" <SPSSX-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
From: Albert-jan Roskam <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: weighted numbers
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Thank you for your quick reply!
But if I add the NU function I can generate weighted
(N) as well as UNweighted numbers of cases. Which is
why I used N, not UN.
aggregate outfile = "d:\temp\tmp.sav" / break = sex
country3 educat / n = n / nu = nu.
--- "Beadle, ViAnn" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Weights don't apply to AGGREGATE; only to
> statistical procedures.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: SPSSX(r) Discussion
> [mailto:SPSSX-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On Behalf Of
> Albert-jan Roskam
> Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 7:52 AM
> To: SPSSX-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
> Subject: weighted numbers
> Dear all,
> I want to calculate the relative proportions of
> within educational categories, stratified by sex and
> country. I use a standardized weight that corrects
> 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
> UNweighted sample? Am I missing something?
> Thanks a lot in advance!
> weight by w_plus.
> ** Method 1.
> compute dummy = 1.
> summarize tables = dummy by sex by country3 by
> / cells = npct (educat).
> ** Method 2.
> aggregate outfile = "d:\temp\tmp.sav" / break = sex
> country3 educat / n = n.
> aggregate outfile = * / break = sex country3 / n_tot
> match files table = * / file = "d:\temp\tmp.sav" /
> = sex country3.
> compute pct = (n / n_tot ) * 100.
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> protection around
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around