|Date: ||Thu, 2 Sep 2004 09:58:34 -0400|
|Reply-To: ||"DePuy, Venita" <depuy001@DCRI.DUKE.EDU>|
|Sender: ||"SAS(r) Discussion" <SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>|
|From: ||"DePuy, Venita" <depuy001@DCRI.DUKE.EDU>|
|Subject: ||Re: stats question|
|Content-Type: ||text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"|
assuming if age < 20 ageband=1, else if age < 40 ageband=2, else if age <
60 ageband=3, sort of thing.
Then ageband is ordinal. ie order matters, as opposed to nominal (1=male,
2=female, order is meaningless).
I've done this several times and seen it done as well . . ie maybe being
older (70+ ) might have an effect on health, but the specific age doesn't
really matter. THe most recent paper that comes to mind had 4 categories
for age (all adult).
Not sure how to answer the clustering question though.
From: Andrew Bolton
Sent: 9/2/2004 9:11 AM
Subject: ot: stats question
Getting a whiles since I did stats at school so apologies if this is an
How would I classify the data type 'age-band', i.e. it's not continous
seem to remeber it's not categorical (is is 'meristic'?). I'm wondering
the best way to handle age-band in clustering, and whether if would be
valid to use a single variable which is coded up as 0,1,2,3 etc for
progressivley older bands (i.e. an implied order)?
Any help/links much appreciated.