Project

General

Profile

Support #1380

Calendar month analysis [item 11, weighting FAQ] not making sense to recreate January 2014

Added by Abigail Dumalus over 1 year ago. Updated 9 months ago.

Status:
Resolved
Priority:
High
Assignee:
-
Category:
-
Start date:
07/16/2020
% Done:

100%


Description

Hello Alita,

I tried following item 11 for doing January 2014 as an example. When I filtered interviews from wave 5, sample month 1 (if wave==22 & month==1) using the data editor on Stata, istrtdaty indicated 2013, istrtdatm ranged from 1 to 6. I am confused why interviews that started in 2013 have to be added under “January 2014” monthly average. Am I doing the filtering in a completely wrong way? It would be helpful if an illustration of January 2014 can be provided, along with the appropriate weighting variable for this month. In order for me to generate 3-month rolling averages/variances, I would need to “create” a period variable that would uniquely identify each pidp within a wave period but in terms of calendar months or years. The command I am trying to do is rangestat on Stata:

rangestat (mean) monthmean_lfsat_3ma = monthmean_lfsat, by(panel_id) interval(panel_month -2 0) —> 3-month moving average of life satisfaction

#1

Updated by Alita Nandi over 1 year ago

  • Status changed from New to In Progress
  • Assignee changed from Alita Nandi to Olena Kaminska
  • % Done changed from 0 to 10
  • Private changed from Yes to No

Hi Abigail,

I have assigned this to Olena. This is similar to your question on the other post which also I have assigned to Olena, so she can respond to both together.

Best wishes,
Alita

#2

Updated by Alita Nandi over 1 year ago

  • Private changed from No to Yes
#3

Updated by Alita Nandi over 1 year ago

  • Status changed from In Progress to Resolved
#4

Updated by Alita Nandi over 1 year ago

  • % Done changed from 10 to 90
#5

Updated by Alita Nandi over 1 year ago

  • Assignee changed from Olena Kaminska to Abigail Dumalus
  • % Done changed from 90 to 50
  • Private changed from Yes to No

Hi Abigail,

Has this question been answered by Olena's response to 1378?

Thanks,
Alita

#6

Updated by Abigail Dumalus over 1 year ago

Hello Alita,

I keep going back and reading Olena’s advice and the weighting FAQ to make sure that the results I get are not biased.

You mentioned that it is possible to have a more detailed chat about any technical concerns regarding Understanding Society. Is this still permitted?

Kindly let me know. Many thanks to Olena and you for your support.

#7

Updated by Alita Nandi over 1 year ago

  • % Done changed from 50 to 90

Hi Abigail,

I will email you from our "" email address (where you had corresponded earlier) and set up a meeting.

Best wishes,
Alita

#8

Updated by Understanding Society User Support Team 9 months ago

  • Assignee deleted (Abigail Dumalus)
  • % Done changed from 90 to 100

Also available in: Atom PDF