[EpiData-list] RE: EpiData-list Digest, Vol 41, Issue 2

epidata-list at lists.umanitoba.ca epidata-list at lists.umanitoba.ca
Fri Mar 9 11:28:07 CST 2007

I agree with the approach of Annenmieke van Middelkoop
about 'invalid' records after "Read".

Bernard Branger, Nantes, France


I have several concerns about this approach.
1.  Most important, records with 'invalid' dates are excluded from
analysis (10 in this example).  The fact that the 'invalid' dates are
likely to be incorrect is no reason to not be able to analyse the
2.  READing a large dataset with many dates can be a very slow process.
3.  The output given by Analysis (as shown above) is not very useful.
Neither record numbers nor variable names are identified.

I would like to suggest:
a.  That dates are not checked at all during the READ process.  The
analyst can look for incorrect dates in Analysis, relevant to the
content of the data.
b.  That the user can specify whether to check the dates or not on
READing a dataset.
c.  That, if neither a. nor b. is an option, more detail about the
'invalid' dates (record number, variable name) is provided so that
they can be edited.

Annemieke van Middelkoop
Pretoria, South Africa


EpiData-list at lists.umanitoba.ca

End of EpiData-list Digest, Vol 41, Issue 2

More information about the EpiData-list mailing list