[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [bug #48040] GLM produces wrong output

From: John Darrington
Subject: Re: [bug #48040] GLM produces wrong output
Date: Sun, 29 May 2016 08:22:32 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)

On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 09:31:25PM -0500, Alan Mead wrote:
     Sorry for the delay.
     Attached is the SPSS output.
     I also ran PSPP and I notice that PSPP calculates negative SS for this
     analysis, which produces negative MS, Negative F's, etc. 
     If I add "select if( not sysmis(agree_score))." before GLM, I reproduce
     the SPSS output.  Seems like not treating missing values is part (or the
     entirety?) of the problem? I wondered if perhaps SPSS 24 might mark
     missing values in a new way that is confusing to PSPP? But that's pure
Thanks Alan,

You are right - this is entirely due to missing values.  I'm somewhat relieved
that it is not something more fundamental.

But the problem I see now is that SPSS does not document how it treats missings.

Perhaps you could do some experiments.  For example, do missing values in the 
factor variables
get treated as a separate factor value or does the case get simply dropped?

And what about the dependent variables? If there are say 2 dependent variables 
and one
is missing  what happens then?  Is the case dropped for both anayses or just 
the one that is missing?


Avoid eavesdropping.  Send strong encryted email.
PGP Public key ID: 1024D/2DE827B3 
fingerprint = 8797 A26D 0854 2EAB 0285  A290 8A67 719C 2DE8 27B3
See or any PGP keyserver for public key.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]