--- Ronan Conroy wrote:
> Another point to consider is that the catchphrase "percentage
> of variance explained" assumes that the percentage of variance
> explainable is 100%.
Yet another point is whether we would want to live in world
where we can explain a 100% of the variance. When teaching I
propose a model explaining whether or not someone is faithful
to their partner. Typically some students than rebel against
the idea that such behaviour can be explained and claim that
it is their choice and their choice alone. However, when I
show the results and the pseudo r square is pretty low, they
correctly claim that that proves their point, but for the
wrong reason. They say models with low R square "are bad",
ergo the model I estimated is bad and should not have been
estimated at all. The correct reasoning is that there is a
lot of room for free choice (or other variables, or better
measurement of the existing variables).
-----------------------------------------
Maarten L. Buis
Department of Social Research Methodology
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Boelelaan 1081
1081 HV Amsterdam
The Netherlands
visiting address:
Buitenveldertselaan 3 (Metropolitan), room Z434
+31 20 5986715
http://home.fsw.vu.nl/m.buis/
-----------------------------------------
*
* For searches and help try:
* http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/res/findit.html
* http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
* http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/
