Re: weights for ttest [message #1687 is a reply to message #1685] |
Thu, 27 March 2014 16:40 data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/39ac1/39ac125008c2564b298c692e1f4463ac6b26c5f8" alt="Go to previous message Go to previous message" data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/5a9cc/5a9cc74ce7b10c80f3fd36de2835cf2448cb6dd2" alt="Go to next message Go to previous message" |
Reduced-For(u)m
Messages: 292 Registered: March 2013
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Thanks for that Liz/Shea.
I've always needed a reason to check the equivalence of these two methods using DHS data, so I did a quick comparison of changes in HAZ over time in Bangladesh as a test case. Let me just confirm that both of these methods generate the same point estimates, and very similar standard errors (probably just rounding differences, and/or something about my specification of strata/psu across survey rounds - but the regression form generated slightly larger se's).
I would add that the regression version took me like 1/10th the time, but that was because retrieving the variance estimates from "svy: mean" took me a minute as they are returned in a matrix.
So point is - Fay: they both work, and statistical theory is vindicated!
|
|
|