8 views

save

- 8. Build the MLR Model-Diagnostics & Model Selection
- Chapter 14, Multiple Regression Using Dummy Variables
- Chapter 02
- Regression
- Engr. Riches S. Bacero
- hw4_so
- Lecture 8 Simple Regression
- 2slsexample
- TRB2004-000051
- Optimization of Formulation and Process Variable of Nanosuspension
- Regrerssion Analysis
- Econ 113 Probset3 Sol
- IFM Presentation
- Finding the Most Significant Determinants of Income Inequality
- Ajinaja&Adedayo
- Regression Analysis in R
- INCOME AND THE PREVALENCE OF OFF-PRICE APPAREL RETAIL STORES
- rep90-2_3
- Experimental Methods on Transducers
- Nagelkerke n.j.d. 1991 - A Note on a General Definition of the Coefficient of Determination
- BUILDING CONTRACT PRICE FORECASTING PRICE INTENSITY THEORY.pdf
- Retail Value and Thread Count
- 9%2C10-simple%20regression-rev.pdf
- in hand manipulation
- A5 Ijaz Hussain
- jurnal 3
- THE EFFECT OF LEADERSHIP, WORK MOTIVATION, WORK ENVIRONMENT TOWARD EMPLOYEES? PERFORMANCE.
- APPLICATION OF DESIGN EXPERT IN THE ANALYSIS OF RESPONSE TRANSFORMATION OF PROCESSES – A CASE STUDY OF BIOETHANOL PRODUCTION PROCESS FROM CORN-STOVER.
- ch10tif.doc
- history 102 quiz
- Case Study 3 FINC3015 85%
- FINC3015 cash flows 70%
- UoS Outline ECOS2001
- Graduate CV

)

b)

**R = SSay/SSaaSSyy = 0.8696
**

b = SSay/SSaa =1.1

c = y – bA = -4

Yi = -4 + 1.1Ai

c) -4 + 1.1(70) = 73

if you use the equation but if you use your intuition and you see that at age 60 the income starts to

drop again therefore income at 70 would probably be less than 50 and intuitively this would be due

to retirement.

2 a)

**CI = [b_hat - t(n-2)*se, b_hat + t(n-2)*se] = 0.4472007, 0.8247993
**

i)

ii)

iii)

Ho : B2 = 0

H1 : B2 not = 0

t crit = t 35, 0.05/2 = 2.0301

Rejection region

T < -2.0301

T > 2.0301

iv)

we reject the null hypotheses because the T H0 is greater that T crit

c) R^2 = 0.2763

d) The Models functional form should be changed; if you look at the residual plot the u

shape of the residuals suggests that there is a relationship other than a linear one between the

variables.

3.

Source

A)

SS

df

MS

Model

Residual

79.1208602

466.593426

1

5

79.1208602

93.3186851

Total

545.714286

6

90.952381

w

Coef.

b

_cons

.2892977

73.6583

Std. Err.

.3141838

10.20055

t

0.92

7.22

**Therefore; Wi = 73.6583 + 0.2892977Bi + ei
**

a = 73.6583

b = 0.2892977

R squared = 0.1450

Number of obs

F( 1,

5)

Prob > F

R-squared

Adj R-squared

Root MSE

P>|t|

0.399

0.001

=

7

=

0.85

= 0.3994

= 0.1450

= -0.0260

= 9.6602

**[95% Conf. Interval]
**

-.5183375

47.43695

1.096933

99.87966

648299 -7. ttest b==0 One-sample t test Variable Obs Mean b 7 30.9247 6.75 80 85 90 95 B) 10 20 30 b 40 Fitted values 50 w C) .050388 Therefore residuals the largest residuals are Boston: . predict res. A) i) units of measurment: prpblck.9816579 Income.49829 -.70673 mean = mean(b) Ho: mean = 0 Ha: mean < 0 Pr(T < t) = 0.644862 8.453517 -11. Err. [95% Conf. D) 1/0.3899 6 Ha: mean > 0 Pr(T > t) = 0.1134864income mean: 47053.11. Dev.1824165 income SD: 13179.29 .55234 18. $ 15919 .4983 and Milwauke +9.0007 41.31571 Std. 4.6483 4.74434 Std.1867665 -6.822286 9.4566469 E) .136529 i) prpblck mean: 0.0003 Therefor we do not reject the null hypothesis.78 ii) prpblck SD: 0.2892977 = 3. Interval] 12.9997 t = degrees of freedom = Ha: mean != 0 Pr(|T| > |t|) = 0. % of black people: 0 – 0. r Team Baltimore Boston Cleveland Detroit Milwaukee New York Toronto res 8.

Dev.1134864 47053.0260006 3.29 Min Max 0 15919 .08611 P>|t| [95% Conf.1134864 47053.42 4.95146493 2 398 .0642 Sample size = 401 Variable Obs Mean prpblck income 409 409 .9816579 136529 Min Max 0 15919 .9936568 C) The coefficient is smaller in this simple regression because income and prpblck have a negative relationship and therefor this regression captures the effects of both the income and the prpblck in the prpblck variable.43 50.000 0.1149882 1.1824165 13179.35 Number of obs F( 2.007885043 psoda Coef. prpblck income _cons .62e-07 .78 Std.000 0.9816579 136529 B) Psoda = 0. .91e-07 . .007415741 Total 3.1824165 13179.60e-06(income) + u R^2 = 0.018992 t 4.60e-06 .31e-06 . Dev. reg psoda prpblck income Source SS df MS Model Residual .9189824 . Interval] 0.9563196 + 0.15401715 400 .0595 .0638724 8.202552215 2. Holding income constant larger and more accurate corelation between prpblck and psoda.1149882(prpblck) + 1. .101276107 . summ prpblck income Variable Obs Mean prpblck income 409 409 . you can see this is also reflected in the r – squared value although both are low the previous regression produced a higher r – squared value. . ..66 0.0642 0.1661039 2. 398) Prob > F R-squared Adj R-squared Root MSE = = = = = = 401 13.0000 0.000 .78 Std.29 .9563196 Std. Err.

0765114 -.057010466 .007885043 psoda Coef.023957 . 398) Prob > F R-squared Adj R-squared Root MSE P>|t| 0. 399) Prob > F R-squared Adj R-squared Root MSE = = = = = = 401 7.0881 P>|t| [95% Conf.87 Number of obs F( 1.793768 + 0.196020672 2.09700668 1 399 .0821 [95% Conf. Interval] 0.037399 Std.68272938 2 398 .0649269 1.047603 .0000 0.0709657 .15401715 400 .1091399 -. prpblck lincome _cons .1721948 .793768 Std.0051905 t 2.71 199. . Err.000 0.098010336 .006740526 Total 2.61 -4. reg psoda prpblck Source SS df MS Model Residual .0681 N= 401 E) 401 14.1120245 1. Interval] Log(psoda) = -0.02431606% .146524 R squared = 0.1215803prpblck + 0. prpblck _cons .87875005 400 .72 4.34 0.1215803 = = = = = = prpblck = 0.0070 0.2 = 0.1794337 t 4.1215803 .027195 .0165969 . reg lpsoda prpblck lincome Source SS df MS Model Residual .0681 0.0257457 .0765114Log(income) + U Log(psoda) = 0.42 Number of obs F( 2.0438829 -1.0181 0.1215803*0.007761922 Total 3.000 0. D) . Err.007 0.0634 . .4410117 .54 0..007196875 lpsoda Coef.000 .000 .0156 .057010466 3.0178292 1.

0306756 .0000 0.018 0.2937111 t 2.87875005 400 .86 -4. .0728072 . Although if you check the correlation between the three variables you will see there is a low value for lpsoda and prppov and a fairly high correlation between prpblck and prppov therefore it may be a multicollinearity issue.1327903 .0843552 .000 = = = = = = 401 12.463333 Std.62840943 3 397 .1344 0.0870 0.1369553 .37 5.0125003 . reg lpsoda prpblck lincome prppov Source SS df MS Model Residual .60 0.007196875 lpsoda Coef.083446874 . Err.08137 [95% Conf.0260 1.98 Number of obs F( 3. Interval] . .0000 -0.1192999 -2.38036 -1. corr lincome prppov (obs=409) lincome prppov lincome prppov 1.250340622 2. .8385 1.6414201 -.. 397) Prob > F R-squared Adj R-squared Root MSE P>|t| 0.0801 . .0000 F). G) log(income) and prppov being in the same regression model cause the problem of multicollinearity. prpblck lincome prppov _cons . But as the prpblck is not too highly correlated with either of these variables it is still viable to include both in the regression when looking at causality of prpblck on psoda.040756 . the problem of two or more independent variables in a regression being highly correlated. as income goes up poverty goes down.0000 0.1895553 . a correlation figure close to -1 makes sense.006620679 Total 2.8859092 The estimate of B1 changes from 0.0000 0.0267554 . there was a relationship between B1(prpblck) with U(error) and U(error) with Y(lpsoda).000 0.004 0.6795 1.121508 to . corr psoda prpblck prppov (obs=401) psoda prpblck prppov psoda prpblck prppov 1.1331141 .0728072 suggesting that the effects of prppov were previously being incorporated in the effects of prpblck.0000 Yes it is what I would expect.12 2.

- 8. Build the MLR Model-Diagnostics & Model SelectionUploaded byAbdu Abdoulaye
- Chapter 14, Multiple Regression Using Dummy VariablesUploaded byAmin Haleeb
- Chapter 02Uploaded bytresna22
- RegressionUploaded byaviniman
- Engr. Riches S. BaceroUploaded byCo Kho Martin
- hw4_soUploaded byAbdu Abdoulaye
- Lecture 8 Simple RegressionUploaded byAhmed Kadem Arab
- 2slsexampleUploaded byAdy Menon
- TRB2004-000051Uploaded byHanamant Hunashikatti
- Optimization of Formulation and Process Variable of NanosuspensionUploaded bySiri Kalyan
- Regrerssion AnalysisUploaded byAnkur
- Econ 113 Probset3 SolUploaded byPrebble Q Ramswell
- IFM PresentationUploaded byOmer Mirza
- Finding the Most Significant Determinants of Income InequalityUploaded byJoanne Asia Wroblewski
- Ajinaja&AdedayoUploaded byAJINAJA, Olatunde T
- Regression Analysis in RUploaded byMayank Rawat
- INCOME AND THE PREVALENCE OF OFF-PRICE APPAREL RETAIL STORESUploaded bytuf64324_387612614
- rep90-2_3Uploaded byAli Raza Shah
- Experimental Methods on TransducersUploaded byZeffrey Aleta
- Nagelkerke n.j.d. 1991 - A Note on a General Definition of the Coefficient of DeterminationUploaded byRaimundo Magalhães
- BUILDING CONTRACT PRICE FORECASTING PRICE INTENSITY THEORY.pdfUploaded bydinu69in
- Retail Value and Thread CountUploaded byKaryn N. Lewis
- 9%2C10-simple%20regression-rev.pdfUploaded byKevin Hyun
- in hand manipulationUploaded byAndika Laksmana Kurniadi
- A5 Ijaz HussainUploaded byKashif Munir Idreesi
- jurnal 3Uploaded byDel Pirunis Al Meohainisti
- THE EFFECT OF LEADERSHIP, WORK MOTIVATION, WORK ENVIRONMENT TOWARD EMPLOYEES? PERFORMANCE.Uploaded byIJAR Journal
- APPLICATION OF DESIGN EXPERT IN THE ANALYSIS OF RESPONSE TRANSFORMATION OF PROCESSES – A CASE STUDY OF BIOETHANOL PRODUCTION PROCESS FROM CORN-STOVER.Uploaded byIJAR Journal
- ch10tif.docUploaded byKelvin John Ramos
- history 102 quizUploaded bybiggbio