On 09-Nov-11 19:39:54, Rich Shepard wrote: > On Wed, 9 Nov 2011, John C Frain wrote: > >> As far as I know if there is an NA in any variable in an >> observation the default is to drop the entire observation. >> Thus there are no observations in your calculation > > John, > > Hadn't realized that. I know there are NA's in other data > frames that yield model results. Perhaps it is the excessive > numbers in this set that are the problem. > > Thanks, > Rich
It is not so much the number of NAs, as the number of observations that get dropped through having at least 1 NA. Provided enough observations remain to get a meaningful fit, you will be OK (though interpretation may be dubious). Ted. -------------------------------------------------------------------- E-Mail: (Ted Harding) <ted.hard...@wlandres.net> Fax-to-email: +44 (0)870 094 0861 Date: 09-Nov-11 Time: 20:06:24 ------------------------------ XFMail ------------------------------ ______________________________________________ R-help@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
