Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 15:28:45 -0500
Reply-To: "Peck, Jon" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sender: "SPSSX(r) Discussion" <SPSSX-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
From: "Peck, Jon" <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: Recode question
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Quoting the CSR
Value specifications are scanned left to right.
A value is recoded only once per RECODE command
So the first specification that matches determines the recode. Overlaps are ok, and, in fact, if you have interval recodes, you control how the endpoints are treated by the order.
From: SPSSX(r) Discussion [mailto:SPSSX-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On Behalf Of emaguin
Sent: Montag, 31. Juli 2006 14:01
Subject: Re: [SPSSX-L] Recode question
I think something has been missed the replies to my question.
Going into the recode 99 was declared to be user missing as the frequency
listing shows. The recode statement ... (missing=9) should have recoded any
user or system missing values to 9. When you look at what comes out, you see
that one case has a value of 9, which would be the case with a sysmis value
going in, and 19 cases have a value of 99. The sysmis part worked as
documented. My contention is that those 19 cases, because they were user
missing going in should have been changed to 9 coming out but they weren't.
It is these 19 cases that I interested in.
I also realize I also did a poor job in making clear what I did because I
left out a missing values statement wherein I declared that 9 was user
missing and which was positioned after the recode statement and before the