#STATA VS SPSS SOFTWARE#
SPSS is software for editing and analyzing all sorts of data. Since SPSS was acquired by IBM in 2009, it's officially known as IBM SPSS Statistics but most users still just refer to it as “SPSS”. SPSS means “ Statistical Package for the Social Sciences” and was first launched in 1968. Percentfoo~e | 36 15.80556 1.SPSS – What Is It? By Ruben Geert van den Berg under Basics su percentfreelunch percentfoodinsecure rural female under18 hispanic, sep(0) Percentfoodin~e byte %10.0g % Food Insecure Variable name type format label variable label d percentfreelunch percentfoodinsecure rural female under18 hispanic Other routes might produce variables of float type.Ĭheck that 36 observations (cases) are included in both regressions. Note that the exact route I followed has the consequence that variables with decimal places are held as double. There are no missing values on the variables used, so what either program might do with missing values is irrelevant here.Ģ/6 variables are presented as integers 4/6 are presented with one decimal place.
This is what I got in Stata 13, after copy and paste and some renaming. This isn't really an answer, but there is no easy way to show output except here. When you care about your data, read them directly: do not intervene manually via copy-and-paste or transcription.
There is no collinearity problem: the VIFs are nice and low. The differences between the two sets of results are a small fraction of a standard error, so they are-in this statistical sense-of no consequence. (A big clue is the rounded values presented for the minima and maxima: in most cases these are not the minima and maxima actually recorded in the Excel file.) I have not been able to reproduce the Stata results in R (my summary statistics do not quite agree with those presented by Nick Cox: my mean for % Food insecure is $15.67$ instead of $15.81$), but I suspect that if I were to paste them into my copy of Stata, I would get the reported Stata results.
#STATA VS SPSS FREE#
When I round the data to integers (for % Free Lunch) and to one decimal place for the others-as they appear when pasting them into R-I get new results, but the estimated coefficients change appreciably. When I read the Excel data directly in R using xlsx::read.xlsx, I reproduce the SPSS results exactly. Rounding of data matters in this situation because for several variables-especially percent female and percent food insecurity-the amounts rounded off can be an appreciable fraction of the standard deviation of the data. During pasting, the receiving application typically will accept the data as they appear, not as they are actually stored! None of the data columns is stored as it appears in Excel. Only % Food Insecure actually is stored to a small number of decimal places (one). In Excel, most of the values were computed elsewhere and are recorded as doubles (about 16 decimal places of precision). The problem (amazingly) has to do with rounding the values during pasting. Stata reg percentfreelunch percentfoodinsecure rural female under18 hispanicĭata is in Excel and was pasted into both. (Or, for point and click, analyze->regression->linear forces a choice under "method" for enter/stepwise/remove/backward/forward.) METHOD=ENTER FoodInsecure Rural Female Hispanic. I presume Stata is doing the same, as its default (but correct me if I'm wrong and it's a different default!).Īny ideas on what else to check? I'm doing just a simple linear regression.
For SPSS, I did not weight it, it's using listwise deletion, and it's on the "enter" method. The data was copy and pasted into each from an Excel I didn't use a Stata file in SPSS, or vice versa. I'm close, but the magnitudes of the betas and significance are slightly different. I am using a simple dataset to do very basic regressions and comparing to see if the results are the same. I'm Stata-proficient but learning SPSS for my new position.
0 kommentar(er)
