Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Multiple regression with all dummy variables
Replies: 7   Last Post: Feb 15, 2013 4:17 PM

 Search Thread: Advanced Search

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 Gary Posts: 73 Registered: 9/6/07
Re: Multiple regression with all dummy variables
Posted: Dec 11, 2012 5:35 PM
 Plain Text Reply

On Wednesday, 12 December 2012 00:22:38 UTC+2, Gary wrote:
> On Tuesday, 11 December 2012 20:20:48 UTC+2, paul wrote:
>

> > Does a multiple regression with all dummy (indicator) variables make
>
> >
>
> > sense? I work at a state university tutoring various basic subjects
>
> >
>
> > including college algebra, first semester calculus, and a two-semester
>
> >
>
> > "Statistics for Business and Economics" sequence. In recent years my
>
> >
>
> > students have been taught that an alternative to using the ANOVA
>
> >
>
> > technique is to run a multiple regression analysis using all dummy
>
> >
>
> > variables. A recent example given as a study guide for the final exam
>
> >
>
> > was a comparison of used-car prices by color (white, black, blue, or
>
> >
>
> > silver.) Both ANOVA and a multiple regression (with black as the
>
> >
>
> > excluded category) reject the null hypothesis that there is no
>
> >
>
> > difference in prices by color. But the students are then told that the
>
> >
>
> > multiple regression gives more information since we can conclude from
>
> >
>
> > the t-tests on individual coefficients that silver cars sell for more
>
> >
>
> > than the base case (black.) I thought you needed at least one measured
>
> >
>
> > (scalar?) variable among the explanatory variables -- it makes no
>
> >
>
> > sense to do a scatter plot on just a dummy variable, so what on earth
>
> >
>
> > is this "line" (or surface) you are getting from the regression?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > So, is having at least one measured explanatory variable a basic
>
> >
>
> > requirement for regression? Has anyone proven that the individual
>
> >
>
> > coefficients on an all-dummy variable regression have no meaning?
>
> >
>
> > Perhaps they follow a well-defined distribution, which might not be
>
> >
>
> > Student's t. Any easy on-line sources? I did not see anything in basic
>
> >
>
> > article on regression in wikipedia.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I'll mention that previously students were taught that, according to
>
> >
>
> > the Central Limit Theorem, if you are doing hypothesis testing on a
>
> >
>
> > mean and you have more than 30 or 40 data points, it's OK to assume
>
> >
>
> > your test statistic is normally rather than t-distributed. They've
>
> >
>
> > abandoned that nonsense, but I'm sceptical about these all-dummy
>
> >
>
> > regressions.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Thanks for any help!
>
>
>
> I think you can find some of the argument in
>
>
>
> Cohen, J. (1968). Multiple regression as a general data-analytic system. Psychological Bulletin, 70, 426-443.
>
>
>
> Also Cohen's famous textbook.
>
>
>
> Lance

I can't find a PDF of the article but here is an account of its content:

http://garfield.library.upenn.edu/classics1982/A1982PB23900001.pdf

Lance

Date Subject Author
12/11/12 paul
12/11/12 Gary
12/11/12 Gary
12/11/12 Bruce Weaver
12/12/12 Bruce Weaver
12/11/12 Paul
12/12/12 paul
2/15/13 Kevin

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.