You are on page 1of 15

Assignment 4

Statistical Inference
Regressions and Factor Analysis

Submitted to: Dr. Nadeem Shafique Butt Submitted by: Saad Ullah khan FA12-MSMS-016

Comsats Institute of Information Technology – Lahore

6% of the variation in salary is explained by age predictor. H1: Model is significant.305 df 1 57 58 b Mean Square 45896. α = 0.05 ANOVA F Test ANOVA Model 1 Regression Residual Total Sum of Squares 45896. Error of the Estimate R Square .016 Square .64245 1.028 48683.028 2774936.000 220.128 a Std. .Q#1 Simple Linear Regression Age 53 43 33 45 46 55 41 55 36 45 55 50 49 47 47 Salary 145 621 262 208 362 424 339 736 291 58 498 643 390 332 862 Age 56 44 46 58 48 38 74 60 32 51 50 40 61 63 62 Salary 204 206 250 21 298 350 800 726 370 536 291 808 543 149 396 Age 69 51 48 62 45 37 50 50 50 58 53 57 53 61 48 Salary 750 368 659 234 396 300 343 536 543 217 298 1103 406 254 572 Age 56 45 61 70 59 57 69 44 56 50 56 43 48 52 Salary 350 242 198 213 296 317 482 155 802 200 282 573 388 250 Model Accuracy: Model Summary Adjusted R Model 1 R .278 2820832.336 a .093 F .943 Sig. Significance of Regression Model H0: Model is insignificant.

. Predictors: (Constant).25 714.38 999.33 274.156 .7 + 3.86 7.37 5.92 3115.63 96.33 288.29 2227.49 8266.128 Coefficients Beta t 1.32 1880.74 110.24 96.63 22.92 811.44 20.21 931.7 1387.48 31.a.336 Salary (in thousand dollars) = 242.58 134.36 30.52 19 6.63 5539.133 Std.42 206.133(age) Q#2 Multiple Linear Regression Site 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 X1 2 3 16.25 3 159.08 255.83 102.66 368 X3 4 40 40 168 42.38 284.5 25.23 182.76 7.67 207.08 981 233.84 2268.77 1845. we can see that p-value is greater than our level of significance so we conclude that our regression model is insignificant at 5% level of significance Regression Equation Coefficients a Standardized Unstandardized Coefficients Model 1 (Constant) age a.08 373.09 1103. age b.24 944.92 267.86 40.92 97. Error 168.25 1 1 7.77 24.61 164.3 16.06 1489.84 3036.37 1.33 1473.98 3534.6 7 5.26 1.760 3.67 54.99 45. Dependent Variable: salary B 242.82 3559.05 20.6 27.75 50. Dependent Variable: salary From the above ANOVA table.702 3.5 168 40 168 40 168 168 168 168 168 168 168 168 168 168 168 168 168 168 168 168 X4 1.79 1.67 8.88 149.5 95 X2 4 1.58 113.31 21.82 937 410 677.33 56.12 0 0.08 384.24 2628.07 25.76 4804.226 .58 23.5 1891.78 2.55 199.42 39.26 X5 1 1 1 1 3 2 3 18 10 6 6 4 14 6 6 14 12 26 12 10 14 58 17 24 9 X6 6 5 13 7 25 19 36 48 77 47 165 36 120 66 166 185 192 237 115 302 131 363 242 540 292 X7 6 5 13 8 25 19 36 48 77 47 130 37 120 66 179 202 192 237 115 210 131 363 242 453 196 Y 180.89 .83 145.89 44.01 46.32 188.438 .03 17.83 695.63 31.971 Sig.

Predictors: (Constant). X2. X4. α = 0. Number of building wings. H0(x1): Average daily occupancy predictor is insignificant.000 a a. Predictors: (Constant). HA(x1): Average daily occupancy predictor is significant. Significance of Overall regression H0: Model is insignificant. X7.05 ANOVA F Test ANOVA Model 1 Regression Residual Total Sum of Squares 8. X2. X5.257 Sig. Dependent Variable: Y From the above ANOVA table.248E7 207177. HA: Model is significant.945 455. .961 Square . X1. HA(x3): Weekly hours of service desk operation predictor is significant. X6 b. H0(x2): Monthly average number of check-ins is insignificant. X7.739E7 3522013.27 df 7 17 24 b Mean Square 1.1672686 a.980 a Std. Monthly average number of check-ins. X5. X3. Operational berthing capacity and Number of rooms. X4.121 90909201. H0(x3): Weekly hours of service desk operation predictor are insignificant.242 F 60. Square feet of common area use. . X1. X6 98% of the variation in “monthly man hours” is explained by Average daily occupancy.Model Accuracy Model Summary Adjusted R Model 1 R . HA(x2): Monthly average number predictor is significant. Weekly hours of service desk operation. X3. we can see that p-value is less than our level of significance so we conclude that our regression model is significant at 5% level of significance. Error of the Estimate R Square .

804 . .035 -.050 .431 4.722 . α = 0.669 -21.362 -2.494 .05 T Test for significance of predictors in regression.619 -14.325 Std.755 Beta .H0(x4): Square feet of common area use predictor is insignificant.480 29.746 4. HA(x4): Square feet of common area use predictor is significant.381 -3.568 -1.578 .805 .814 . H0(x5): Number of building wings is insignificant.003 .  Weekly hours of service desk operation  Square feet of common area use is significant. Error 237. we conclude at 5% level of significance that.  Monthly average number of check-ins is significant.  Average daily occupancy is insignificant.998 1.  Operational berthing capacity is significant.355 .366 -.003 .172 14.154 .284 1.106 .129 .  Number of rooms is significant.968 -1. HA(x6): Operational berthing capacity predictor is significant. H0(x7): Number of rooms predictor is insignificant.516 1.220 6.595 3. Dependent Variable: Y From the above table. B 1 (Constant) X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 X7 134. HA(x7): Number of rooms predictor is significant.112 .846 10.708 .423 5.000 a.  Number of building wings is insignificant.020 -. HA(x5): Number of building wings predictor is significant H0(x6): Operational berthing capacity predictor is insignificant.607 .

Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx.000 0.985 55 .Regression Equation Monthly Man Hours = 134.05 Bartlett’s Test KMO and Bartlett's Test Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy.61 (Number of building wings is insignificant) – 14.96 – 1.4 (Operational berthing capacity is significant) +29.849 value of KMO is near to 1 which shows that factor analysis is suitable.669(Weekly hours of service desk operation) – 21.8 (Monthly average number of check-ins is significant) + . HA: Factor Analysis is Suitable.28(Average daily occupancy is insignificant) +1. Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Bartlett’s Test H0: Factor Analysis is not suitable.4(Square feet of common area use is significant) + 5.849 558.3 (Number of rooms is significant) Q#3 Factor Analysis: Managerial skills Suitability of Factor Analysis KMO and Bartlett's Test Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. α = 0. . Chi-Square df Sig. .985 55 .849 558. we can see that p-value is less than our level of significance so we conclude that factor analysis is suitable at 5% level of significance . Chi-Square df Sig.000 From the above table.

312 .848 .693 80.227 % of Variance 44.352 14.606 1.283 .375 .913 Cumulative % 44.153 -.090 .434 .737 2.597 9.079 .534 4.195 .111 89.943 3.793 .831 5.352 14.251 .641 .040 .883 3.061 Cumulative % 44.949 68.271 .228 85.268 .705 .757 -.072 .779 .023 .Number of Factors Initial Eigenvalues Component 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Total 4.162 .863 Above Eign Values show that suitable number of factors is 3.433 2.913 5.505 97.721 .296 2 .156 .537 .879 1.061 .792 95.677 .352 58.000 Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Total 4.714 2.307 .949 68.322 .863 74.239 .054 92.298 .606 1. Factor Construction and Factor Names Rotated Component Matrixa Component 1 I show confidence in my staff I let my staff know they are doing well I give feedback to staff on how well they are working I would personally compliment staff if they did outstanding work I believe in setting goals and achieving them I achieve the things I want to get done in a day I never try to put off until tomorrow what I can finish today I plan the use of my time well I remain clear headed when too many demands are made upon me I rarely overlook important factors when plans are made I handle complex problems efficiently .746 .411 .167 .270 .597 9.797 .226 .352 58.879 1.787 .122 3 .939 100.090 % of Variance 44.817 .609 .

05 Bartlett’s Test .000 .956 19654. Bartlett’s Test H0: Factor Analysis is not suitable. these 11 variables can be categorized into three factors as following. α = 0.155 105 .956 value of KMO is near to 1 which shows that factor analysis is suitable.From above rotated component matrix. Feedback  I show confidence in my staff  I let my staff know they are doing well  I give feedback to staff on how well they are working  I would personally compliment staff if they did outstanding work Time Management  I believe in setting goals and achieving them  I achieve the things I want to get done in a day  I never try to put off until tomorrow what I can finish today  I plan the use of my time well Problem Solving  I remain clear headed when too many demands are made upon me  I rarely overlook important factors when plans are made  I handle complex problems efficiently Q#4 Factor Analysis: Classroom behavior Suitability of Factor Analysis KMO and Bartlett's Test Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. . Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square df Sig. HA: Factor Analysis is Suitable.

510 .756 .376 .748 .530 .279 .000 From the above table.662 .861 .223 .295 . Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx.096 .398 2 .648 .373 .797 .203 .237 .268 .310 .956 19654.240 .778 .155 .155 105 .843 .234 .KMO and Bartlett's Test Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. Chi-Square df Sig.328 .396 . .593 3 .422 .325 .259 .724 .288 .312 .858 .286 .258 .405 .806 .863 .362 .770 . we can see that p-value is less than our level of significance so we conclude that factor analysis is suitable at 5% level of significance Factor Construction and Factor Names Rotated Component Matrixa Component 1 CONCENTRATES CURIOUS PERSEVERES EVEN-TEMPERED PLACID SUSTAINED ATTENTION COMMUNICATIVE RELAXED CALM PURPOSEFUL ACTIVITY COOPERATIVE CONTENTED RELATES-WARMLY COMPLIANT SELF-CONTROLLED Task Oriented  CONCENTRATES  CURIOUS  PERSEVERES  SUSTAINED ATTENTION  PURPOSEFUL ACTIVITY .622 .082 .158 .526 .

8 87. HA: Model is significant. α = 0.9 87.3 22 Guilty 13 Percentage Correct 62. gender. sociable.Settledness  PLACID  RELAXED  CALM  COMPLIANT  SELF-CONTROLLED Social-ability  EVEN-TEMPERED  COMMUNICATIVE  COOPERATIVE  CONTENTED  RELATES-WARMLY Q#4 Logistic Regression Exercise 1: Model Accuracy Classification Table a Predicted Observed verdict Not Guilty Not Guilty verdict Step 1 Guilty Overall Percentage 8 122 93. Overall Model Significance H0: Model is insignificant. sensitivity and intelligence variable.05 Chi Square Test .3% variation in verdict is explained by attractiveness. warmth. kindness.

intellig. H0(x3): sociable predictor is insignificant.754 . H0(x4): warmth predictor is insignificant.385 5. α = 0. From the above table. gender.256 . HA(x6): sensitivity predictor is significant.  Attractiveness is insignificant. we conclude at 5% level of significance that.534 9118. HA(x4): warmth predictor is significant.000 .140 -. HA(x5): kindness predictor is significant. we can see that p-value is less than our level of significance so we conclude that our regression model is significant at 5% level of significance.000 Exp(B) 1.828 df 7 7 7 Sig.031 .901 df 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Sig. HA(x7): intelligence predictor is significant. warmth.285 1.792 Wald .828 69.210 . HA(x1): attractiveness predictor is significant.343 1.000 From the above table.828 69.207 .323 . .228 . sociable.289 .457 4.520 .Omnibus Tests of Model Coefficients Chi-square Step Step 1 Block Model 69. H0(x2): gender predictor is insignificant. H0(x5): kindness is predictor insignificant. .535 .640 .E.456 . .05 Wald Test Variables in the Equation B attract gender sociable Step 1 a S.282 -.000 .446 -.628 9.652 3.769 25.065 .153 . HA(x3): sociable predictor is significant.  Gender is significant.869 . H0(x6): sensitivity predictor is insignificant.207 .021 .225 1. sensitiv. kind.381 .118 warmth kind sensitiv intellig Constant a.399 7.254 -.543 .499 .005 . . H0(x7): intelligence predictor is insignificant. Significance of each Predictor H0(x1): attractiveness predictor is insignificant. HA(x2): gender predictor is significant. Variable(s) entered on step 1: attract.463 -1.

05 Chi Square Test Omnibus Tests of Model Coefficients Chi-square Step Step 1 Block Model 35. MARSTAT. α = 0.9 111 Yes 63 a Predicted Percentage Correct 63.8 58.323(attract) -1.000 . Kindness is significant. Sensitivity is insignificant. FEM.350 35.282(sensitivity) .118 + 0.500 78 91 53.446(kind) – 0.628(intelligence) Exercise 2: Predicting Whether or Not Sexual Harassment Will Be Reported Model Accuracy Classification Table Observed reported No No reported Step 1 Yes Overall Percentage a.256(gender) + 0.     Sociable is insignificant. The cut value is . Overall Model Significance H0: Model is insignificant.000 . . HA: Model is significant.0.14(warmth) – 0.350 df 4 4 4 Sig. Regression Model Log ( p/1-p) = 9.9% variation in REPORTED is explained by AGE.000 From the above table.8 58.350 35. we can see that p-value is less than our level of significance so we conclude that our regression model is significant at 5% level of significance. and OFFENSUV variables. Intelligence is significant. .254(sociable) – 0. Warmth is insignificant.

marstat. H0(x4): OFFENSUV predictor is insignificant.425 Wald 1. we conclude at 5% level of significance that.073 .483(OFFENSUV) . H0(x3): FEM predictor is insignificant.298 .14(AGE) – 0. fem.  AGE is insignificant.073(MARSTAT) + 0.217 26. Variable(s) entered on step 1: age. HA(x3): FEM predictor is significant. . offensuv.986 .Significance of each Predictor H0(x1): AGE predictor is insignificant.05 Wald Test Variables in the Equation B age marstat Step 1 a S.929 1.255 . From the above table.015 .000 .1.754 .007 1.  MARSTAT is insignificant.765 – 0.  OFFENSUV is significant. Regression Model Log (p/1-p) = .094 1. .007 .234 .765 fem offensuv Constant a.171 -.215 Exp(B) .E.014 -.650 1.535 df 1 1 1 1 1 Sig.098 .  FEM is insignificant.007(FEM) + 0.013 .483 -1.641 . HA(x2): MARSTAT predictor is significant. HA(x1): AGE predictor is significant. H0(x2): MARSTAT predictor is insignificant. HA(x4): OFFENSUV predictor is significant α = 0.621 .

H0(x2): REPEAT predictor is insignificant.000 . Overall Model Significance H0: Model is insignificant.3 31.2% variation in DROPOUT is explained by ADDSC. we can see that p-value is less than our level of significance so we conclude that our regression model is significant at 5% level of significance.597 59.3 88. REPEAT and SOCPROB variables.05 Wald Test .500 87.000 .597 df 3 3 3 Sig. . Significance of each Predictor H0(x1): ADDSC predictor is insignificant. The cut value is . HA(x1): ADDSC predictor is significant.05 Chi Square Test Omnibus Tests of Model Coefficients Chi-square Step Step 1 Block Model 59. H0(x3): SOCPROB predictor is insignificant.Exercise 3: Predicting Who Will Drop-Out of School Model Accuracy Classification Table Observed a Predicted dropout No No 210 22 Yes 8 10 Percentage Correct 96.000 From the above table. HA(x2): REPEAT predictor is significant. α = 0. α = 0. HA: Model is significant. HA(x3): SOCPROB predictor is significant.597 59.0 dropout Step 1 Yes Overall Percentage a.

we conclude at 5% level of significance that.293 2.000 .029 3.071 Wald 2.408 30.  SOCPROB is significant.4.690 df 1 1 1 1 Sig.2.645 14.288 4. .E.659 -4. Step 5: From the above table.Variables in the Equation B addsc Step 1 a S.659(REPEAT) + 1. Variable(s) entered on step 1: addsc. .  ADDSC is insignificant.130 .630 a.285 .616 .019 .036 .  REPEAT is significant.029 .010 socprob repeat Constant 1. Regression Model Log (p/1-p) = .558 18.000 Exp(B) 1. repeat.630 + 0. socprob.481 1.029(ADDSC) .293(SOCPROB) .