33 views

Original Title: 15 Building Regression Models Part2

Uploaded by Rama Dulce

- Firm-level Impact of Free Trade Agreements on Import Prices
- Regional Trade Agreements and Enterprises in Southeast Asia
- Economic Growth and Social Development an Empirical Study on Selected States in India
- 9307804.pdf
- eco dummy
- The Effect of Drug Use on GPA
- Ddp 0100
- R10_Multiple_Regression_and_Issues_in_Regression_Analysis_Q_Bank.pdf
- A Study on the Relationship Between Sensory Marketing on Customer Satisfaction
- Stepwise versus Hierarchical Regression: Pros and Cons
- Week 7 Assignment (1).docx
- DOE Engi 9516 Assignment 3a
- lect16
- US Federal Trade Commission: 050114halwhite
- spatial8_tcm96-122713.pdf
- Spss
- Modeling Change
- climate and learning organization
- Tugas Kimed Lidya Parameter
- Statistical Modeling of the Soil Water

You are on page 1of 17

Topics Outline

Include/Exclude Decisions

Variable Selection Procedures

Example 1

Explaining spending amounts at HyTex

HyTex is a direct marketer of stereo equipment, personal computers, and other electronic

products. HyTex advertises entirely by mailing catalogs to its customers, and all of its orders are

taken over the telephone. The company spends a great deal of money on its catalog mailings, and

it wants to be sure that this is paying off in sales.

The file Catalog_Marketing.xlsx contains data on 1000 customers who purchased mail-order

products from the HyTex Company in the current year. For each customer there are data on the

following variables:

Age

Gender

OwnHome

Married

Close

= 1 for males, 0 for females

Salary

Children

= 1 if customer is currently married, 0 otherwise

= 1 if customer lives reasonably close to a shopping area that sells similar

merchandise, 0 otherwise

combined annual salary of customer and spouse (if any)

number of children living with customer

PrevCust

PrevSpent

Catalogs

AmountSpent

total amount of purchases made from HyTex during the previous year

number of catalogs sent to the customer this year

total amount of purchases made from HyTex this year

Develop a multiple regression model that is useful for explaining current year spending amounts at HyTex.

Solution:

With this much data, 1000 observations, it is possible to set aside part of the data set for validation.

Although any split can be used, lets base the regression on the first 750 observations and use the

other 250 for validation. Therefore, you should select only the range through row 751 when

defining the StatTools data set.

(a) Regression 1

Run first a multiple regression with all explanatory variables.

The goal is then to exclude variables that aren't necessary, based on their t-values and P-values.

Here is the multiple regression output.

-1-

It indicates a fairly good fit. The r2 value is 74.7% and se is about $491. Given that the actual

amounts spent in the current year vary from a low of under $50 to a high of over $5500, with

a median of about $950, a typical prediction error of around $491 is decent but not great.

(b) Which variable(s) would you exclude from the regression equation?

From the P-value column, you can see that there are four variables, Age, Gender, OwnHome,

and Married, that have P-values well above 0.05. These are the obvious candidates for

exclusion from the equation. You could rerun the equation with all four of these variables

excluded, but it is a better practice to exclude one variable at a time. It is possible that when

one of these variables is excluded, another one of them will become significant.

(c) Rerun the regression after excluding the variables with the largest P-values one at a time.

Regression 2

The variable Married has the largest P-value. The result from rerunning the regression

without this variable shows that Age, Gender, and OwnHome still have large p-values.

Regression 3

The variable with the largest remaining P-value Age is excluded.

Regression 4

The variable with the largest remaining P-value OwnHome is excluded.

Regression 5

The variable with the largest remaining P-value Gender is excluded.

Here is the resulting output.

-2-

The r2 and se values of 74.6% and $491 are almost the same as they were with all variables

included, and all of the P-values are very small.

(d) Interpret the coefficients of the final regression equation.

The coefficient of Close implies that an average customer living close to stores with this type

of merchandise spent about $416 less than an average customer living far from such stores.

The coefficient of Salary implies that, on average, about 1.8 cents of every extra salary dollar

was spent on HyTex merchandise.

The coefficient of Children implies that about $161 less was spent for every extra child living at home.

The PrevCust and PrevSpent terms are somewhat more difficult to interpret.

First, both of these terms are zero for customers who didn't purchase from HyTex in the

previous year. For those who did, the terms become

544 + 0.27PrevSpent

The coefficient 0.27 implies that each extra dollar spent the previous year can be expected to

contribute an extra 27 cents in the current year. The 544 literally means that if you compare a

customer who didn't purchase from HyTex last year to another customer who purchased only a

tiny amount, the latter is expected to spend about $544 less than the former this year. However,

none of the latter customers were in the data set. A look at the data shows that of all customers

who purchased from HyTex last year, almost all spent at least $100 and most spent considerably

more. In fact, the median amount spent by these customers last year was about $900 (the median

of all positive values for the PrevSpent variable). If you substitute this median value into the

expression 544 + 0.27PrevSpent, you obtain 298. Therefore, this median spender from last

year can be expected to spend about $298 less this year than the previous year nonspender.

The coefficient of Catalogs implies that each extra catalog can be expected to generate about

$44 in extra spending.

-3-

procedures produce the same regression

equation for the amount spent in the

current year?

Each of these options is found in the

StatTools Regression dialog box shown

to the right. It is just a matter of choosing

the appropriate option from the

Regression Type dropdown list.

In each, specify AmountSpent as the

dependent variable and select all of the

other variables (besides Customer) as

potential independent variables.

Once you choose one of the regression

types, the dialog box changes, as shown

below, to include a Parameters section

and an advanced option to Include

Detailed Step Information.

procedure (stepwise, forward, and

backward) produces the same final

equation that we obtained previously,

with all variables except Age, Gender,

OwnHome, and Married included.

This often happens, but not always.

The stepwise and forward procedures

add the variables in the order Salary,

Catalogs, Close, Children, PrevCust,

and PrevSpent.

The backward procedure, which starts

with all variables in the equation,

eliminates variables in the order

Married, Age, OwnHome, and Gender.

A sample of the stepwise output appears

below.

-4-

The variables that enter or exit the equation are listed at the bottom of the output. The usual

regression output for the final equation also appears. Again, however, this final equation's

output is exactly the same as when multiple regression is used with these particular

variables.

Notes:

1. If you validate this final regression equation on the other 250 customers, you will find r 2 and

se values of 73.2% and $486. These are very promising. They are very close to the values

based on the original 750 customers.

2. We haven't tried all possibilities. We haven't tried nonlinear or interaction variables,

nor have we looked at different coding schemes (such as treating Catalogs as a categorical

variable and using dummy variables to represent it).

3. We haven't checked the regression assumptions. In particular, it turns out that the condition

for constant error variance is violated as can be seen from the fan shape of the scatterplot of

AmountSpent versus Salary:

-5-

As usual, when you see a fan shape, where the variability increases from left to right in a

scatterplot, you can try a logarithmic transformation. The reason this often works is that the

logarithmic transformation squeezes the large values closer together and pulls the small

values farther apart. The scatterplot of the log of AmountSpent versus Salary is shown below.

Clearly, the fan shape is gone. However, the logarithmic transformation appears to have

introduced some curvature into the plot. So, perhaps some other nonlinear transformations are

worth exploring in this example.

-6-

Example 2

Possible gender discrimination in salary at Fifth National Bank of Springfield

The Fifth National Bank of Springfield is facing a gender discrimination suit.

The charge is that its female employees receive substantially smaller salaries than its male

employees. The bank's employee data are listed in the file Bank_Salaries.xlsx.

Employee EducLev JobGrade

1

3

1

2

1

1

M

M

M

207

5

6

208

5

6

YrsExper

3

14

M

35

33

Age

26

38

M

59

62

Gender YrsPrior

Male

1

Female

1

M

M

Male

0

Female

0

PCJob

No

No

M

No

No

Salary

$32,000

$39,100

M

$94,000

$30,000

For each of the 208 employees, the data set includes the following variables:

EducLev education level, a categorical variable with categories

1 (finished high school), 2 (finished some college courses), 3 (obtained a bachelor's degree),

4 (took some graduate courses), 5 (obtained a graduate degree)

JobGrade a categorical variable indicating the current job level, the possible levels being 1 through 6

YrsExper years of experience with this bank

Age

YrsPrior number of years of work experience at another bank prior to working at Fifth National

PCJob

computer-related

Salary

Do these data provide evidence that the bank discriminates against females in terms of salary?

A formal hypothesis test to compare the average female salary to the average male salary could

be run. Using this method, you can check that the average of all salaries is $39,922, the female

average is $37,210, the male average is $45,505, and the difference between the male and female

averages is statistically significant at any reasonable level of significance.

In short, the females definitely earn less. But perhaps there is a reason for this.

They might have lower education levels, they might have been hired more recently, and so on.

The question is whether the difference between female and male salaries is still evident after

taking these other attributes into account.

Solution:

-7-

Using Excel

Create a dummy variable Female based on Gender in column J by entering the formula

=IF(F2= Female,1,0)

in cell J2 and copying it down.

Note that females are coded as 1s and males as 0s.

Create a dummy variable HasPCJob based on PCJob in column K by entering the formula

=IF(H2= Yes,1,0)

in cell K2 and copying it down.

Using StatTools

StatTools's Dummy procedure is somewhat easier, especially when there are multiple categories.

Here are the steps to create five dummies for the education levels.

Data Utilities

Dummy

Select EducLev to base the dummies on

Create One Dummy Variable for Each Distinct Category

OK

Yes

This creates five dummy columns with variable names EducLev = 1 through EducLev = 5.

Follow the same procedure to create six dummies, JobGrade = 1 through JobGrade = 6.

(b) Regression 1

Estimate a regression equation with only one explanatory variable, Female and interpret it.

The output appears below.

Predicted Salary = 45505 8296 Female

To interpret regression equations with dummy variables, it is useful to rewrite the equation for

each category.

-8-

If you substitute Female = 1 into the estimated regression equation, you obtain

Predicted Salary = 45505 8296(1) = 37209

Because Female = 1 corresponds to females, this equation simply indicates the average female salary.

Similarly, if you substitute Female = 0 into the estimated equation, you obtain

Predicted Salary = 45505 8296(0) = 45505

Because Female = 0 corresponds to males, this equation indicates the average male salary.

Therefore, the interpretation of the 8296 coefficient of the Female dummy variable is straightforward.

It is the average female salary relative to the reference (male) category.

In short, females get paid $8296 less on average than males.

(c) Regression 2

Expand the regression equation by adding the experience variables YrsExper and YrsPrior.

Here is the output with the Female dummy variable and these two experience variables.

Predicted Salary = 35492 + 988 YrsExper + 131 YrsPrior 8080 Female

It is again useful to write this equation in two forms: one for females (substituting Female = 1)

and one for males (substituting Female = 0). After doing the arithmetic, they become

Predicted Salary = 27412 + 988 YrsExper + 131 YrsPrior

Predicted Salary = 35492 + 988 YrsExper + 131 YrsPrior

Except for the intercept term, these equations are identical. You can now interpret the

coefficient 8080 of the Female dummy variable as the average salary disadvantage for

females relative to males after controlling for job experience.

Gender discrimination still appears to be a very plausible conclusion.

Note that the r2 value is only 49.2%. Perhaps there is still more to the story.

-9-

(d) Regression 3

Add education level to the equation by including any four of the five education level dummies,

for example by including EducLev = 2 through EducLev = 5. (Reminder: You should always

use one fewer dummy than the number of categories for any categorical variable.)

Here is the resulting output.

Predicted Salary = 26613 + 1033 YrsExper + 362 YrsPrior 4501 Female

+ 160 EducLev=2 + 4765 EducLev=3 + 7320 EducLev=4 + 11770 EducLev=5

Now there are two categorical variables involved, gender and education level.

However, you can still write a separate equation for each combination of categories by

setting the dummies to appropriate values. For example, the equation for females at

education level 5 is found by setting Female and EducLev=5 equal to 1, and setting the other

education dummies equal to 0. After combining terms, this equation is

Predicted Salary = 33882 + 1033 YrsExper + 362 YrsPrior

This equation can be interpreted as follows. For either gender and any education level,

the expected increase in salary for one extra year of experience with Fifth National is $1033;

the expected increase in salary for one extra year of prior experience with another bank is $362.

The coefficients of the education dummies indicate the average increase in salary an

employee can expect relative to the reference (lowest) education level.

For example, an employee with education level 4 can expect to earn $7320 more than an

employee with education level 1, all else being equal.

The key coefficient, $4501 for females, indicates the average salary disadvantage for females

relative to males, given that they have the same experience levels and the same education levels.

Note that the r2 value is now 64.5%, quite a bit larger than when the education dummies were not

included. We appear to be getting closer to the truth. In particular, you can see that there appears to

be gender discrimination in salaries, even after accounting for job experience and education level.

- 10 -

(e) Regression 4

Add the remaining explanatory variables to the model: JobGrade=2 through JobGrade=6

(the lowest job grade is used as the reference category), Age and HasPCJob.

The regression output for this equation with all variables appears below.

The effect of age appears to be minimal, and there appears to be a bonus of close to $5000

for having a PC-related job.

The r2 value has now increased to 76.5%, and the penalty for being a female has decreased to

$2555 still large but not as large as before.

As expected, the coefficients of the job grade dummies are all positive, and they increase as

the job grade increases it pays to be in the higher job grades. Thus, the regression indicates

that being in lower job grades implies lower salaries, but it doesn't explain why females are

in the lower job grades in the first place.

(f) Regression 5

If you rerun the regression using the numerical explanatory variable YrsExper and the

dummy variable Female, you obtain the equation

Predicted Salary = 35824 + 981 YrsExper 8012 Female

The r2 value for this equation is 49.1%.

It is certainly plausible that the effect of YrsExper on Salary is different for males than for females.

So, it makes good sense to test for an interaction between YrsExper and Female variables.

- 11 -

(g) Regression 6

If an interaction variable between YrsExper and Female is added to this equation, what is its effect?

You first need to form an interaction variable that is the product of YrsExper and Female.

Using Excel

Use an Excel formula that multiplies the two variables involved.

Using StatTools

Data Utilities

Interaction

Interaction Between: Two Numeric Variables

Select YrsExper and Female

OK

Now you can run the regression. The multiple regression output appears below.

Notice that the r2 value with the interaction variable has increased from 49.1% to 63.9%.

The interaction variable has definitely added to the explanatory power of the equation.

The estimated regression equation is

Predicted Salary = 30430 + 1528 YrsExper + 4098 Female 1248 Interaction(YrsExper,Female)

The negative interaction here means that females tend to get lower raises for each extra year

of experience than the males get. To unravel the meaning of this negative interaction, it is useful

to write the above equation as two separate equations, one for females and one for males.

The female equation (Female = 1, so that Interaction(YrsExper,Female) = YrsExper ) is

Predicted Salary = (30430 + 4098) = (1528 1248) YrsExper = 34528 + 280 YrsExper

and the male equation (Female = 0, so that Interaction(YrsExper,Female) = 0 ) is

Predicted Salary = 30430 + 1528 YrsExper

Graphically, these equations appear in the following figure.

- 12 -

The y-intercept for the female line is slightly higher females with no experience with Fifth National

tend to start out slightly higher than males but the slope of the female line is much smaller.

That is, males tend to move up the salary ladder much more quickly than females. This provides

another argument, although a somewhat different one, for gender discrimination against females.

Notes:

1. Interaction variables can make a regression quite difficult to interpret, and they are certainly

not always necessary. However, without them, the effect of each x on y is independent of the

values of the other xs. If you believe, as in this example, that the effect of years of experience

on salary is different for males than it is for females, the only way to capture this behavior is

to include an interaction variable between years of experience and gender.

2. The product of any two variables, a numerical and a dummy variable, two dummy variables,

or even two numerical variables, can be used to create an interaction term. The easiest way to

interpret the results correctly is the way we have been doing it by writing several separate

equations and seeing how they differ.

(h) Suppose you include the variables YrsExper, Female, and HighJob in the equation for Salary,

along with interactions between Female and YrsExper and between Female and HighJob.

Here, HighJob is a new dummy variable that is 1 for job grades 4 to 6 and is 0 for job grades 1 to 3.

(It can be calculated as the sum of the dummies JobGrade = 4 through JobGrade = 6.)

The resulting equation is

Predicted Salary = 28168 + 1261 YrsExper + 9242 HighJob + 6601 Female

1224 Interaction(YrsExper,Female) + 1564 Interaction(Female,HighJob)

and the r2 value is now 76.6%.

Interpret the regression coefficients.

- 13 -

The interpretation of this equation is quite a challenge because it is really composed of four

separate equations, one for each combination of Female and HighJob.

For females in the high job category, the equation becomes

Predicted Salary = (28168 + 9242 + 6601 + 1564) + (1261 - 1224) YrsExper

= 45575 + 37 YrsExper

and for females in the low job category it is

Predicted Salary = (28168 + 6601) + (1261 - 1224) YrsExper

= 34769 + 37 YrsExper

Similarly, for males in the high job category, the equation becomes

Predicted Salary = (28168 + 9242) + 1261 YrsExper

= 37410 + 1261 YrsExper

and for males in the low job category it is

Predicted Salary = 28168 + 1261 YrsExper

Putting this into words, the various coefficients can be interpreted as follows.

The intercept 28168 is the average starting salary (that is, with no experience at Fifth National)

for males in the low job category.

The coefficient 1261 of YrsExper is the expected increase in salary per extra year of

experience for males (in either job category).

The coefficient 9242 of HighJob is the expected salary premium for males starting in the

high job category instead of the low job category.

The coefficient 6601 of Female is the expected starting salary premium for females relative

to males, given that they start in the low job category.

The coefficient 1224 of Interaction(YrsExper,Female) is the penalty per extra year of

experience for females relative to males that is, male salaries increase this much more than

female salaries each year.

The coefficient 1564 of Interaction(Female,HighJob) is the extra premium (in addition to the

male premium) for females starting in the high job category instead of the low job category.

(i) Regression 7

A glance at the distribution of salaries of the 208 employees shows some skewness to the right

a few employees make substantially more than the majority of employees. Therefore, it might

make more sense to use the natural logarithm of Salary as the dependent variable, not Salary.

Run a regression with Log(Salary) as the dependent variable and YrsExper and Female as

explanatory variables. How can you interpret the results?

Here are the results obtained after creating the Log(Salary) variable and running the regression.

- 14 -

Predicted Log(Salary) = 10.4907 + 0.0188 YrsExper 0.1616 Female

The r 2 and s e values are 42.4% and 0.1794.

When this same equation was estimated with Salary as the dependent variable, r 2 and s e were

49.1% and 8,070. However, these measures are not directly comparable because when the logarithm

of y is used in the regression equation the units of the dependent variable are completely different.

The two r 2 values are percentages explained of different dependent variables, Log(Salary) and Salary.

The fact that one is smaller than the other (42.4% versus 49.1%) does not necessarily mean

that it corresponds to a worse fit. They simply are not comparable.

Each s e is a measure of a typical residual, but the residuals in the Log(Salary) equation are in

log dollars, whereas the residuals in the Salary equation are in dollars. These units are of

totally different magnitudes. For example, the log of $1000 is only 6.91. Therefore, it is no

surprise that s e for the Log(Salary) equation is much smaller than s e for the Salary equation.

If you want comparable standard error measures for the two equations, you should take antilogs

(using the EXP function in Excel) of fitted values from the Log(Salary) equation to convert them

back to dollars, subtract these from the original Salary values, and take the standard deviation of

these residuals. You can check that the resulting standard deviation is 7,774. This is somewhat

smaller than s e = 8,080 from the Salary equation, an indication of a slightly better fit.

To interpret the regression equation itself, recall that when the dependent variable is log(y)

and a term on the right-hand side of the equation is of the form bx, then whenever x increases

by one unit, the predicted value of y changes by a constant percentage, and this percentage is

approximately equal to b (written as a percentage). Thus, the regression coefficient for

YrsExper means that for each extra year of experience with Fifth National, an employee's

salary can be expected to increase by about 1.88%.

To interpret the Female coefficient, note that the only possible increase in Female is one unit

(from 0 for male to 1 for female). When this occurs, the expected percentage decrease in

salary is approximately 16.16%. In other words, the regression equation implies that females

can expect to make about 16% less than men for comparable years of experience.

- 15 -

(j) In Regression 6 we regressed Salary versus the Female dummy, YrsExper, and the interaction

between Female and YrsExper, Interaction(YrsExper,Female). The output appears below.

Block1 = Female, YrsExper, Interaction(YrsExper,Female),

already explains 63.9% of the variation in Salary. Does including the followings groups of

explanatory variables add anything significant to what we already have?

Block2 = EducLev dummies, EducLev=2 to EducLev=5

Block3 = JobGrade dummies, JobGrade=2 to JobGrade=6

Block4 = interactions between the Female dummy and the education dummies,

Interaction(Female,EducLev=2) to Interaction(Female,EducLev=5)

This question can be answered by performing several partial F tests.

With StatTools, this analysis can be done in one step.

Select the Block option from the Regression Type

dropdown list. The dialog box then changes, as

shown in the figure to the right.

Number of blocks: 4

Check which variables are in which blocks.

Check Salary as dependent variable.

Specify 0.05 as the P-Value to enter, which in this

case indicates how significant the block as a whole

must be to enter for the partial F test.

OK

The regression calculations are done in stages.

At each stage, the partial F test checks whether a

block is significant. If it is, the variables in this

block enter and the procedure goes to the next

stage. If it is not, the procedure ends; neither this

block nor any later blocks enter.

The output from this procedure appears below.

- 16 -

shows the final regression

equation.

The output in rows 34 through 37

indicates summary measures after

successive blocks have entered.

Note that the final block, the

interactions between Female and

the education dummies,

is not in the final equation.

This block did not pass the partial

F test at the 5% level.

(k) Run the block procedure a second time, changing the order of the blocks:

Block2 = JobGrade dummies, JobGrade=2 to JobGrade=6

Block3 = EducLev dummies, EducLev=2 to EducLev=5

Block4 = interactions between the Female dummy and the education dummies,

Interaction(Female,EducLev=2) to Interaction(Female,EducLev=5)

The regression output appears to

the right.

Note that neither of the last two

blocks enters the equation this

time. Once the job grade

dummies are in the equation, the

terms including education are no

longer needed.

The implication is that the order

of the blocks can make a

difference.

- 17 -

- Firm-level Impact of Free Trade Agreements on Import PricesUploaded byERIA: Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia
- Regional Trade Agreements and Enterprises in Southeast AsiaUploaded byADBI Publications
- Economic Growth and Social Development an Empirical Study on Selected States in IndiaUploaded byAlexander Decker
- 9307804.pdfUploaded byjegosss
- eco dummyUploaded byPulkit Gupta
- The Effect of Drug Use on GPAUploaded byMay Nguyen
- Ddp 0100Uploaded byDanishev
- R10_Multiple_Regression_and_Issues_in_Regression_Analysis_Q_Bank.pdfUploaded byZidane Khan
- A Study on the Relationship Between Sensory Marketing on Customer SatisfactionUploaded byarcherselevators
- Stepwise versus Hierarchical Regression: Pros and ConsUploaded byMitzi Lewis
- Week 7 Assignment (1).docxUploaded byJack Jungman
- DOE Engi 9516 Assignment 3aUploaded bynuvan
- lect16Uploaded byiwan
- US Federal Trade Commission: 050114halwhiteUploaded byftc
- spatial8_tcm96-122713.pdfUploaded byJosé Luis Matos
- SpssUploaded byYahdi Furqon Busnia
- Modeling ChangeUploaded byrgarcia340
- climate and learning organizationUploaded byQuang Minh Trương
- Tugas Kimed Lidya ParameterUploaded bymaulidya
- Statistical Modeling of the Soil WaterUploaded byMike
- B.Sc. (H) Probability and Statistics 2011-2012Uploaded byDharmendra Kumar
- Anderson KraberUploaded byvijay2101
- dsaUploaded bysaleh
- 2015 Final ExamUploaded byAnonymous gUySMcpSq
- DOE Wizard - Screening DesignsUploaded byAnonymous FZNn6rB
- Optimized Curve FittingUploaded byrajesh
- BDM Sample Final Exam + SolutionsUploaded byyakoweshen
- regressionanalysis-110723130213-phpapp02.pdfUploaded byprashantnasa
- 971Uploaded byAndreea Munteanu
- Thin Layer Drying of sliced MangoUploaded byRuel Peneyra

- 16_altprob_8eUploaded byRama Dulce
- 14_Building_Regression_Models_Part1.pdfUploaded byRama Dulce
- 14_Building_Regression_Models_Part1.pdfUploaded byRama Dulce
- Income Homework AccountingUploaded byRama Dulce
- 6-KWW(16)-LTLiab-HWSolUploaded byRama Dulce
- 09 Inference for Regression Part1Uploaded byRama Dulce
- 11 Multiple Regression Part1Uploaded byRama Dulce
- 12_altprob_8eUploaded byRama Dulce
- Chap 002Uploaded bysam
- 12 Multiple Regression Part2Uploaded byRama Dulce
- 08_Review_of_Part_IUploaded byRama Dulce
- 14_altprob_8eUploaded byRama Dulce
- 10 Inference for Regression Part2Uploaded byRama Dulce
- 13_altprob_8eUploaded byRama Dulce
- 16 Review of Part IIUploaded byRama Dulce
- 02 Describing DistributionsUploaded byRama Dulce
- 05_Statistical_Inference.pdfUploaded byRama Dulce
- 05_Statistical_Inference.pdfUploaded byRama Dulce
- 07 Simple Linear Regression Part2Uploaded byRama Dulce
- AmylaseUploaded byRama Dulce
- 06 Simple Linear Regression Part1Uploaded byRama Dulce
- 04_Decision_Analysis_Part2-2.pdfUploaded byRama Dulce
- 04_Decision_Analysis_Part2-2.pdfUploaded byRama Dulce
- Chapter 7Uploaded byRama Dulce
- 01 Probability and Probability DistributionsUploaded byRama Dulce
- Admin ExcelUploaded byRama Dulce
- Multiple RegressionUploaded byAman Poonia
- 13 Multiple Regression Part3Uploaded byRama Dulce
- 03 Decision Analysis Part1Uploaded byRama Dulce

- Dynamic Drum-Buffer-Rope approach for production planning.pdfUploaded byKelicharamos
- ShootingMethodTutorialUploaded byashwin802
- Part 1 - Introduction to Systems EngineeringUploaded bylord_azureas
- Gauss Theorem ProofUploaded bybpmurta
- Grape Leaf Disease Detection Using K-means Clustering AlgorithmUploaded byIRJET Journal
- Doina's CVUploaded bylecadoina
- 2015-16 BE Civil EngineeringUploaded byTEJASH INGALE
- Elmod6QuickStart Rel. 2Uploaded byLaksmana Angga Parsada
- Gear TrainUploaded byP RAVI KUMAR
- HHUploaded byHocine Abbas
- Catia V5 Assembly DesignUploaded bySimona Simone
- DESIGN AGAINST TOOTH INTERIOR FATIGUE FRACTUREUploaded byCA RV
- Lesson #20 - Dividing Fraction by Fractions - Uncommon DenominatorsUploaded byMR.E
- MBA 1st Semester SyllabusUploaded byVignesh RV
- Fraser Institute Report Card on Ontario’s Elementary Schools 2016Uploaded byTyler McLean
- xabcUploaded byGohil Nath
- Modeling External Compressible FlowUploaded bynugrohoisnandi
- ModBus Memory Map TK4Uploaded byReneAbarca
- 9 Binomial WaysUploaded byHendy Kurniawan
- Simulation 062Uploaded bygurpinder.rajgarh1331
- Book of AbstractUploaded bywal1547
- seeingthingsdifferentlymathsportfolio santaromanaUploaded byapi-306465805
- Projectile, Uniform Circular Motion, Relative VelocityUploaded byJanelli Valdezco
- The Ultimate Value at RiskUploaded byDr. Jeff Lewis
- kes-mysqlUploaded byMalekDjelassi
- Basic Questions Related to Thermal EngineeringUploaded byfarukhali
- Maths Activity Class 3 8 Part3Uploaded byjaya_sassi
- 1999 Analytical models for rock bolts.pdfUploaded byericmedel
- Digital Signal Prossessing I Part01Uploaded bykrajasekarantuti
- Ooad Question Bank[1]Uploaded byPradeep Pravin Kumar V