[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date index][Thread index]

From |
Stas Kolenikov <[email protected]> |

To |
[email protected] |

Subject |
Re: st: RE: Rituals [was: Terminology for supposedly all-purpose summaries] |

Date |
Mon, 11 Oct 2004 13:10:33 -0400 |

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 10:09:03 -0500, Richard Williams <[email protected]> wrote: > At 10:37 AM 10/11/2004 -0400, Stas Kolenikov wrote: > >Also, I've seen people deriving F-statistics for testing an increase > >in R2 as you add variables to the model. So it is the R2 that is the > >"first principle" for them. The distinction between "measures" and > > If by that you mean researchers are primarily interested in the R^2, I > wouldn't agree (at least not always). If I have X1, X2, and X3 in the > (constrained) model, and I then add X4, X5, and X6 to the (unconstrained) > model, I'm likely interested in testing the hypothesis > > H0: B4 = B5 = B6 = 0 > HA: At least one of the above betas does not equal 0. Of course there are multiple ways of testing this hypothesis, either Wald way by forming the vector of hyptheses and deriving covariance matrix for them; or by likelihood ratio way which would be the difference of sum of squares (if you don't believe the likelihood, you can still use sum of squares in model-free way, but the results will only have asymptotic sense then). The score test should also be feasible. The three are equivalent in linear regression, but different in nonlinear models, and there are models where one of them is easy to do (usually the Wald test), while others may be prohibitively difficult to implement, so the equivalence is quite limited. The point I was trying to make is that I found it amusing to call this a test on R2 increase, thus concentrating on R2 as the primary outcome of the regression. Of course you can derive the F-test from R2, but that is doing some extra work and going back to the original statistics that are more natural to the regression, namely the sums of squares. That of course varies by discipline; this particular one was in business research methods that seem to stem from psychology. -- Stas Kolenikov http://stas.kolenikov.name * * 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/

**References**:**st: RE: Rituals [was: Terminology for supposedly all-purpose summaries]***From:*"Nick Cox" <[email protected]>

**Re: st: RE: Rituals [was: Terminology for supposedly all-purpose summaries]***From:*Stas Kolenikov <[email protected]>

**Re: st: RE: Rituals [was: Terminology for supposedly all-purpose summaries]***From:*Richard Williams <[email protected]>

- Prev by Date:
**st: too small standard errors in Stata bivariate probit** - Next by Date:
**st: Slow STATA** - Previous by thread:
**Re: st: RE: Rituals [was: Terminology for supposedly all-purpose summaries]** - Next by thread:
**RE: st: RE: Rituals [was: Terminology for supposedly all-purpose summaries]** - Index(es):

© Copyright 1996–2024 StataCorp LLC | Terms of use | Privacy | Contact us | What's new | Site index |