- EpiData-list - University of Manitoba Mailing Lists

hidden values, but aggregate counts?
by epidata-list＠lists.umanitoba.ca 30 Aug '05

30 Aug '05

First, my thanks to Dirk for answering an earlier query of mine. Please forgive another question. For each record, I calculate a value at the bottom of the data entry form and determine if the respondent fits in group 1 or group 2. Is there any way to hide this group designation for the individual record (as in the value cannot be seen in the form), but still count the aggregate number of respondents fitting into group 1 or group 2? I consider using a temporary variable as a counter, but this raises complications if records are entered in separate batches or earlier records have their values modified. Thanks! Anthony

1 0

Double Entry Verification and several fields to match on
by epidata-list＠lists.umanitoba.ca 26 Aug '05

26 Aug '05

> [EpiData-list] verification question >>> [1] I would like to MATCH RECORDS by more than ONE FIELD when >>> preparing double entry verification - is this possible ? >>> [2] Once a file is verified, does the corrected data reside in the >>> *.REC or the *_dbl.REC file ? EpiData has two principles of validation: A. Compare two separate files entered independently. B. Compare at field level while entering data. Preparation of the two are both at the tool menu. A. Copy structure (of existing rec + chk file) B. Prepare Double Entry Verification Actual validation: A. Is done after all data have been entered. In the document menu you can "Validate Duplicate Files". When you specify the two files up to three fields can be used to match the two files. B. Is done while entering data the second time. You can only match on one field. The corrected data resides in the ..._dbl.rec file, which is the one you are adding data to. After point B you can run the two files with option A and get a record of how much was corrected while entering data the second time in ..._dbl.rec file. If you want to create a unique match while entering data on more than one field a typical way of doing so would be to create a key field like this: To do so, e.g. your matching fields are v1 v2 v3 in the check file: v1 mustenter end v2 mustenter end v3 mustenter after entry keyfield = string(v1)+" "+string(v2)+" "+string(v3) end keyfield noenter key unique end I am not sure how double entry would handle this, but make a test and see how it works. regards Jens Lauritsen EpiData Association

1 0

verification question
by epidata-list＠lists.umanitoba.ca 25 Aug '05

25 Aug '05

>>[1] I would like to MATCH RECORDS by more than ONE FIELD when preparing >>double entry verification - is this possible ? And if so, how do I do it ? >> >>[2] Once a file is verified, does the corrected data reside in the *.REC >>or the *_dbl.REC file ? >> >>Thank you.

1 0

Re: EpiData-list Digest, Vol 22, Issue 7 (Out of office)
by epidata-list＠lists.umanitoba.ca 25 Aug '05

25 Aug '05

I will be back at my desk on Monday 5 September 2005 . Until then my access to email will be very limited, and I will address most of it upon my return. If there is anything requiring urgent attention, please contact: Rebecca.Collins(a)lshtm.ac.uk +44 020 7927 22 14 or Rachel.Clarke(a)lshtm.ac.uk +44 020 7927 22 14 Kind regards Kristof >>> epidata-list 08/25/05 18:01 >>> Send EpiData-list mailing list submissions to epidata-list(a)lists.umanitoba.ca To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.umanitoba.ca/mailman/listinfo/epidata-list or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to epidata-list-request(a)lists.umanitoba.ca You can reach the person managing the list at epidata-list-owner(a)lists.umanitoba.ca When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of EpiData-list digest..."

1 0

Analysis build 36 released
by epidata-list＠lists.umanitoba.ca 25 Aug '05

25 Aug '05

Analysis build 36 was just released for testing. at http://www.epidata.dk/testing.php Unless users report severe problems, the current build will be released as version 1.0 with some restrictions or removal of commands with problems, see below. Version 0.9 release 5 build 36 * Added or modified o A "select font" on first startup to guide the user for efficient setup of screen o Improved documentation of output formation o Table command can show categories defined as missing o New option controls if more than one instance of the programme can run o Aspects of handling missing value further implemented. o Parsing of strings changed to exclude trailing blanks: e.g "Lion " is the same as "Lion", but not the same as " Lion". o sorting of tables corrected o Tests of homegenity (interaction) in summary stratified 2x2 tables removed until final stable solution is found * Bugs fixed: o "Pointer error" in tables, graphs or describe fixed o Error in table estimates for 2x2 tables o Recnumber now returns number within current select o set listrec was not working Remaining known major issues to settle before v1.0 * Tables must be included in txt formatted log files Known major issues not settled or clarified * Relating files not tested fully * Appending in combination with records marked for deletion * Odds Ratios and RR in tables with Rare data (0 in cells) * Tests of homegenity (interaction) in summary stratified 2x2 tables removed until final stable solution is found Known issues not fixed (put on future list) * Correlate command results in "floating point error" when correlate cannot be calculated * Contents of strings should be converted to UPPER in logical statements to work. e.g. count if upper(v) = "TEST" * Setting format (set number format) is not consistent Kind regards Jens Lauritsen

1 0

match records by field help in verification
by epidata-list＠lists.umanitoba.ca 17 Aug '05

17 Aug '05

[1] I would like to MATCH RECORDS by more than ONE FIELD when preparing double entry verification - is this possible ? And if so, how do I do it ? [2] Once a file is verified, does the corrected data reside in the *.REC or the *_dbl.REC file ? Thank you.

1 0

Re: protecting formulas in check file?
by epidata-list＠lists.umanitoba.ca 12 Aug '05

12 Aug '05

You cannot protect the chk-file completely (e.g. against someone determined to change its contents), but you can protect it from accidental changes it by setting the read-only flag of the file (see "file attributes" of your operating system). Dirk Anthony (epidata-list-request(a)lists.umanitoba.ca) wrote: > I have some coefficient values and equations in my chk file and I wondered > if there was some way to protect them from being changed by another user > down the road? > > In other words, can I structure it so somone in the field can enter the data > into the form but not manipulate, accidentally or otherwise, the chk file > contents?

1 0

protecting formulas in check file?
by epidata-list＠lists.umanitoba.ca 11 Aug '05

11 Aug '05

I have some coefficient values and equations in my chk file and I wondered if there was some way to protect them from being changed by another user down the road? In other words, can I structure it so somone in the field can enter the data into the form but not manipulate, accidentally or otherwise, the chk file contents? Any help would be much appreciated. Thank you! Anthony

1 0

Why does calculation of age at given date not work ?
by epidata-list＠lists.umanitoba.ca 09 Aug '05

09 Aug '05

Question sent to info(a)epidata.dk: I wrote commands as following, which I follow the help commands: dob AFTER ENTRY LET age=round(int(("1997/11/01"-dob)/365.25)) END END But when I change "1997/11/01" into today, as in the following commands, it works! Why so? dob AFTER ENTRY LET age=round(int((today-dob)/365.25)) END END So I just want to ask what is the problem, because I strictly followed your commands in help manual, but age cannot be calculated on a given date. The formulations above are correct, with one exception. THe help file says also: EpiData was made in Europe and here dates are written in the notation dd/mm/yyyy, so to make the statements above work LET age=round(int(("1997/11/01"-dob)/365.25)) should be: LET age=round(int(("01/11/1997"-dob)/365.25)) regardless of which format dob has. It is better to send questions like this to the EpiData list at: epidata-list(a)lists.umanitoba.ca, since the info @ epidata.dk is very often overly filled with spam mails. Jens Lauritsen Coodinator and initiator of EpiData

1 0

Re: EpiData-list Digest, Vol 22, Issue 2
by epidata-list＠lists.umanitoba.ca 08 Aug '05

08 Aug '05

To see value labels you need not (only) the question file (.qes) but the records validation file, as well. One possibility for the different results you obtain is that the validation file (.chk) is not always in the directory EpiData expects it to be - EpiData lets you enter data, create a codebook etc. even if no validation file exists (or if the validation file is in a different directory as the records file .rec). In that case, however, no value labels can be applied. Dirk Cahterine Mathews (epidata-list-request(a)lists.umanitoba.ca) wrote: > Hi > We're using version 3.1, downloaded from the Epi Data site. This is the > first time we've used Epi Data. We are in the process of entering data > into it. Initally, when we created a codebook from the QES file, the > codebook displayed the values together with the value labels. But in > subsequent attempts to create a codebook from the same QES file, we have > found that the codebook won't show the value labels we entered into the > QES file. Sometimes it won't even show the values. Do you have any > ideas about this? ************************************************* Dr. Dirk Enzmann Institute of Criminal Sciences Dept. of Criminology Edmund-Siemers-Allee 1 D-20146 Hamburg Germany phone: +49-040-42838.7498 (office) +49-040-42838.4591 (Billon) fax: +49-040-42838.2344 email: dirk.enzmann(a)jura.uni-hamburg.de www: http://www2.jura.uni-hamburg.de/instkrim/kriminologie/Mitarbeiter/Enzmann/E… *************************************************

1 0