Mimicking SPSS weighted least squares
John Fox wrote:
Dear JRG, Rolf, Ben, and Peter, "Frequency" weights, possibly even non-integer weights, are useful for surveys where observations are sampled with unequal probabilities of selection. The approach in SPSS gives correct point estimates in this situation but incorrect standard errors. The survey package, for example, provides a better solution. Regards, John
Actually, I count this as a 3rd variant of weighting. I believe that
SPSS 's standard errors are actually OK for the case where one data line
actually represents a number of identical replicates. To my mind, there
are three (main) kinds of weighting:
(1) Variance weighting (weights proportional to inverse variances)
(2) Case weights (weights identical to number of replicates)
(3) Inverse probability weights (weights inversely proportional to
sampling freq.)
All three give the same point estimates, beta=inv(X'WX)X'WY but the SEs
and DF are different (W is the diagonal matrix of weights). I think the
formulas are as follows (please correct if I goofed):
in (1) you get sigma^2=Y'(W-WX' inv(X'WX)X'W)Y/(n-rank(X)) ,
VCOV= sigma^2 inv(X'WX),
in (3) it is sigma^2=Y'(I-WX inv(X'WX)X') (I- X inv(X'WX)X'W)Y/(n-rank(X)),
VCOV=sigma^2 inv(X'WX) X'WWX inv(X'WX)
in both these cases, the DF are n-rank(X) (glossing over complications
that arise when the weights become zero) and the VCOV are stable to
proportional scaling of W.
in (2) you get sigma^2=Y'(W-WX' inv(X'WX)X'W)Y/(tr(W)-rank(X)),
VCOV= sigma^2 inv(X'WX),
This is deceptively similar to (1), but notice the denominator of
sigma^2. In this case, multiplying the weights by, say, 2 will roughly
halve the VCOV, which is fair enough since it means that you have twice
as much data.
-------------------------------- John Fox, Professor Department of Sociology McMaster University Hamilton, Ontario, Canada L8S 4M4 905-525-9140x23604 http://socserv.mcmaster.ca/jfox
-----Original Message-----
From: r-help-bounces at r-project.org [mailto:r-help-bounces at r-
project.org] On Behalf Of JRG
Sent: March-10-08 10:27 PM
To: Rolf Turner; r-help at r-project.org; Ben Domingue
Cc: r-help at r-project.org
Subject: Re: [R] Mimicking SPSS weighted least squares
On 11 Mar 2008 at 14:09, Rolf Turner wrote:
It would appear that the SPSS procedure would then give exactly the
same
point estimates of the parameters, and change the inference structure
by
changing the ``denominator degrees of freedom'' from n-p to sum(w) -
p.
Well, if that IS what SPSS does, then it sounds like what Stata calls
frequency weights, the
general idea being that each "observation" in fact represents some non-
negative number (w) of
actual observations that have identical values. Not much more than a
glorified version of a
frequency distribution table.
I don't see anything fundamentally wrong with frequency weights, given
an appropriate situation.
---JRG
John R. Gleason
This seems to me to make little sense ... But then, it ***is***
SPSS. :-)
cheers,
Rolf
On 11/03/2008, at 11:35 AM, Peter Dalgaard wrote:
Rolf Turner wrote:
On 11/03/2008, at 4:04 AM, Ben Domingue wrote:
Howdy,
In SPSS, there are 2 ways to weight a least squares regression:
1. You can do it from the regression menu.
2. You can set a global weight switch from the data menu.
These two options have no, in my experience, been equivalent.
Now, when I run lm in R with the weights= switch set accordingly,
I
get the same set of results you would see with option #1 in SPSS.
Does anybody know how to duplicate option #2 from SPSS in R?
I think it's up to you to find out what ``option #2 from SPSS''
actually
*does*. If you know that, then you can (with a modicum of effort)
duplicate that option in R. The help file for lm() tells you that
R uses the weights by minimizing sum(w*e^2) where w = weights and
e = ``errors'' or residuals.
I believe case weighting in SPSS effectively replicates the
relevant row (not sure if anything sensible comes out if weights
are non-integer). So
lm(...., data=mydata[rep(1:nrow(mydata),w),])
or thereabouts should do it. Might not be too efficient though.
--
O__ ---- Peter Dalgaard ?ster Farimagsgade 5, Entr.B
c/ /'_ --- Dept. of Biostatistics PO Box 2099, 1014 Cph. K
(*) \(*) -- University of Copenhagen Denmark Ph: (+45)
35327918
~~~~~~~~~~ - (p.dalgaard at biostat.ku.dk) FAX: (+45)
35327907
######################################################################
Attention:
This e-mail message is privileged and confidential. If you are not
the
intended recipient please delete the message and notify the sender.
Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author.
This e-mail has been scanned and cleared by MailMarshal
www.marshalsoftware.com
######################################################################
______________________________________________ R-help at r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-
guide.html
and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
______________________________________________ R-help at r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting- guide.html and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
O__ ---- Peter Dalgaard ?ster Farimagsgade 5, Entr.B c/ /'_ --- Dept. of Biostatistics PO Box 2099, 1014 Cph. K (*) \(*) -- University of Copenhagen Denmark Ph: (+45) 35327918 ~~~~~~~~~~ - (p.dalgaard at biostat.ku.dk) FAX: (+45) 35327907