Re: R-squared in regression
- From: Stats Wolf <stats.wolf@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 05:57:22 -0700 (PDT)
On 3 Kwi, 02:25, Richard Ulrich <Rich.Ulr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 02:53:49 -0700 (PDT), Stats Wolf
<stats.w...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2 Kwi, 08:41, Ray Koopman <koop...@xxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 1, 12:44 pm, Stats Wolf <stats.w...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[snip]
I don't see any particular reason for R in multiple and r in simple
regression. I would rather say it should be either R or r in each
case. I don't also think that the regression-correlation distinction
is relevant, but if someone wants to convince me this is r and not R
what should be used, I would base also on this argument. All too often
r as a sqrt(r2) in regression is misunderstood as the correlation
coefficient. Hence the distinction does become (at least slightly)
relevant.
That's not really a misunderstanding, unless they are
implying something unusual. The r of the prediction
equation with the criterion is the sqrt(R^2) .
Well, we're entering another topic, but I can't fully agree. Pearson's
correlation coefficient, which we're talking about here, is used for
two normal variables, while one of the regression's assumptions is
that the independent variable be a fixed one, not random. Hence, if we
want to be strict, we should not consider Pearson's correlation
coefficient correct in regression. IF we want to be strict, though.
--
Rich Ulrich
http://www.pitt.edu/~wpilib/index.html
.
- References:
- R-squared in regression
- From: Stats Wolf
- Re: R-squared in regression
- From: Ray Koopman
- Re: R-squared in regression
- From: Stats Wolf
- Re: R-squared in regression
- From: Richard Ulrich
- R-squared in regression
- Prev by Date: Re: R-squared in regression
- Next by Date: Repeated Measure?
- Previous by thread: Re: R-squared in regression
- Next by thread: Re: R-squared in regression
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading