Choosing statistical software is part of The Fundamentals of Statistical Skill and is necessary to learning a second software (something we recommend to anyone progressing from Stage 2 to Stage 3 and beyond).
My poor colleague was pulling her hair out in frustration today.
You know when you’re trying to do something quickly, and it’s supposed to be easy, only it’s not? And you try every solution you can think of and it still doesn’t work?
And even in the great age of the Internet, which is supposed to know all the things you don’t, you still can’t find the answer anywhere?
Cue hair-pulling.
Here’s what happened: She was trying to import an Excel spreadsheet into SAS, and it didn’t work.
Instead she got:
We’ve talked a lot around here about the reasons to use syntax — not only menus — in your statistical analyses.
Regardless of which software you use, the syntax file is pretty much always a text file. This is true for R, SPSS, SAS, Stata — just about all of them.
This is important because it means you can use an unlikely tool to help you code: Microsoft Word.
I know what you’re thinking. Word? Really?
Yep, it’s true. Essentially it’s because Word has much better Search-and-Replace options than your stat software’s editor.
Here are a couple features of Word’s search-and-replace that I use to help me code faster:
One of the most confusing things about mixed models arises from the way it’s coded in most statistical software. Of the ones I’ve used, only HLM sets it up differently and so this doesn’t apply.
But for the rest of them—SPSS, SAS, R’s lme and lmer, and Stata, the basic syntax requires the same pieces of information.
1. The dependent variable
2. The predictor variables for which to calculate fixed effects and whether those (more…)
Someone recently asked me if they need to learn R. In responding, it struck me that this is another way that learning a stat package is like learning a new language.
The metaphor is extremely helpful for deciding when and how to learn a new stat package, and to keep you going when the going gets rough. (more…)
I received the following email from a reader after sending out the last article: Opposite Results in Ordinal Logistic Regression—Solving a Statistical Mystery.
And I agreed I’d answer it here in case anyone else was confused.
Karen’s explanations always make the bulb light up in my brain, but not this time.
With either output,
The odds of 1 vs > 1 is exp[-2.635] = 0.07 ie unlikely to be 1, much more likely (14.3x) to be >1
The odds of £2 vs > 2 exp[-0.812] =0.44 ie somewhat unlikely to be £2, more likely (2.3x) to be >2SAS – using the usual regression equation
If NAES increases by 1 these odds become (more…)