Solved – CIs for proportions in Stata: ci vs. proportion command

confidence intervalproportion;stata

I'm performing some basic analysis on a large data set (n-size after restrictions about 4,000) to supplement some qualitative historical research. The goal is to produce a variety of confidence intervals for proportions, and I've run the analysis in Stata using both the ci command (with aweights) and the proportion command (with pweights). The means generated by ci are more or less identical to the proportions generated by proportion, but there is more noticeable (though not very substantial) variation in the confidence intervals.

I'm wondering if there is a strong theoretical reason to opt for either the ci or the proportion command here? I'm guessing the latter given the sample size.

Best Answer

The essence of this question is statistical, although as phrased it is not likely to mean much to non-Stata users.

Yes, there is a reason, and it doesn't have to be called "theoretical" as it is practical too.

The reasons for using pweights with proportion would be, and could only be, that you

  1. Have survey data so declared, which is why you are using pweights at all.

  2. Cannot do that calculation in ci.

proportion has other uses too.

To spell out a little what is meant by "survey data": Survey design characteristics often include sampling weights, one or more stages of clustered sampling, and stratification.

If that's so, there is not really any question of choice or shopping around: ci is not the command to use for survey data.

Related Question