Bookmark and Share

Notice: On April 23, 2014, Statalist moved from an email list to a forum, based at statalist.org.


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: st: about residuals and coefficients


From   Richard Williams <[email protected]>
To   [email protected], [email protected]
Subject   Re: st: about residuals and coefficients
Date   Wed, 18 Sep 2013 08:53:08 -0500

At 09:26 PM 9/17/2013, David Hoaglin wrote:
Ronan,

I continue to prefer "per unit increase" since a regression
coefficient is a type of slope.  In a particular application an actual
increase of one unit may be too large or too small to be meaningful.
The exception, of course, arises when the predictor is an indicator,
whose values are only 0 and 1.

The language about the expected effect of the change on the other
predictors in the model may not reflect the associations among the
predictors.

I do not understand teaching the "other things held constant"
interpretation.  First impressions are often powerful.  It seems a
disservice to students to teach them an interpretation that is flawed.
 It simply does not reflect the way that multiple regression works.

David Hoaglin

I am not sure if David would like this any better, but I often use phrasings along the lines of "On an all other things being equal basis" or "if you had two otherwise identical people, one male and one female, how would you expect their scores to differ?" The "held constant" phrasing seems a bit nonsensical for variables like gender -- gender can't (or at least usually doesn't) change, but it is possible to have people who have similar or identical values on the other independent variables but who differ in their gender.

The comparisons should be reasonable -- I probably would not say something like "If you had two otherwise identical people, one a multi-billionaire and the other broke and penniless..."



On Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 7:16 AM, Ronan Conroy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2013 MFómh 7, at 01:25, David Hoaglin wrote:
>
>> I usually suggest the following wording: The coefficient of Xj is the
>> average change in Y per unit increase in Xj after adjusting for
>> simultaneous linear change in the other predictors in the model in the
>> data at hand.  It would be nice to have something simpler, but in
>> general nothing simpler will do.  I suggest "per unit increase in Xj"
>> because the coefficient is a sort of slope, and a change of one unit
>> may not be meaningful in the particular set of data.
>
> Or, if writing for people who think in language: The coefficient of the predictor variable is the change we expect associated with a one-unit increase in the predicted variable, after we adjusted for the expected effect that this change will have on the other predictor variables in the model.
>
> Or can someone suggest a better way of phrasing this?
>
> Purely pragmatically, I tend to teach the 'other things held constant' interpretation because it's a good first-pass in understanding multivariate models, and it's not doing any real-life violence to the interpretation of the data that I can see (has anyone examples where it's plain misleading?).
>
> Ronán Conroy

*
*   For searches and help try:
*   http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search
*   http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/resources/statalist-faq/
*   http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/

-------------------------------------------
Richard Williams, Notre Dame Dept of Sociology
OFFICE: (574)631-6668, (574)631-6463
HOME:   (574)289-5227
EMAIL:  [email protected]
WWW:    http://www.nd.edu/~rwilliam


*
*   For searches and help try:
*   http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search
*   http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/resources/statalist-faq/
*   http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/


© Copyright 1996–2018 StataCorp LLC   |   Terms of use   |   Privacy   |   Contact us   |   Site index