|
Elsmar Cove Forum Sidebar
|
|
|
|
Monitor the Elsmar Forum
|
| Monitor New Forum Posts
|
|
Follow Marc & Elsmar
|
|
|
Elsmar Cove Groups
|
|
|
Sponsor Links
|
|
|
|
|
|
Donate and $ Contributor Forum Access
|
 |
|
Sponsored Links
|
|
|
|
Courtesy Quick Links
|
 Links that Elsmar Cove visitors will find useful in your quest for knowledge:
Howard's International Quality Services
Atul's Symphony Technologies
Marcelo Antunes' SQR Consulting
Bob Doering's Correct SPC - Precision Machining
NIST's Engineering Statistics Handbook
IRCA - International Register of Certified Auditors
SAE - Society of Automotive Engineers
Quality Digest Portal
IEST - Institute of Environmental Sciences and Technology
ASQ - American Society for Quality
|
|
 |
|

2nd July 2012, 10:51 AM
|
 |
Forum Moderator
Registration Date: Sep 2003
Location: Kansas, USA
Age: 50
|
|
Posts: 975
Thanks Given to Others: 29
Thanked 351 Times in 211 Posts
Karma Power: 148
|
|
|
Re: Regression Analysis for the Attached Data - help needed - TIA
Try this spreadsheet -- it calculates the fit and the error. I made a couple different errors the first time I created the spreadsheet and got poor results like you did. But then I figured out the problems and then the regression results did indeed give a good fit.
__________________
To wonder is to begin to understand.
|
|
Thanks to Tim Folkerts for your informative Post and/or Attachment!
|
|

3rd July 2012, 06:10 AM
|
|
Involved in Discussions
Registration Date: Mar 2011
|
|
Posts: 39
Thanks Given to Others: 43
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Karma Power: 13 Karma: 10 
|
|
|
Re: Regression Analysis for the Attached Data - help needed - TIA
Quote:
In Reply to Parent Post by Tim Folkerts
Try this spreadsheet -- it calculates the fit and the error. I made a couple different errors the first time I created the spreadsheet and got poor results like you did. But then I figured out the problems and then the regression results did indeed give a good fit.
|
Thank you Tim Folkerts. I checked the attached file and i've seen that the error is already small and the predicted output is almost same with the actual dependent variable....I looked at how the predicted value was calculated and it was the summation of the product of coefficients and the actual value for the day... I got very big variance because when I calculated the predicted value I summed the product of the (coefficient divide by 100) times the (actual value of independent variable divide by the value of the independent variable of the model) times the (value of the dependent variable of the model)
the value of the independent variable of the model was the average for all the days
the value of the dependent variable of the model was the average value of the dependent variable for all days
But this kind of calculating the predicted output. i used it on the other data and i got closer values. So does it means that the equation in determining the predicted output can be changed or is not fixed...Please enlighten me.. Thanks a lot..
|

3rd July 2012, 06:14 AM
|
 |
Number Cruncher
Registration Date: May 2005
Location: Germany
|
|
Posts: 390
Thanks Given to Others: 95
Thanked 270 Times in 173 Posts
Karma Power: 79
|
|
|
Re: Regression Analysis for the Attached Data - help needed - TIA
Quote:
In Reply to Parent Post by quick_silver
So does it means that the equation in determining the predicted output can be changed or is not fixed...
|
What do you mean with "changed"? Different values for the input variables? Different equation structure (e.g. quadratic effects additional to main effects, interactions)?
|
|
Thanks to Barbara B for your informative Post and/or Attachment!
|
|

3rd July 2012, 06:35 AM
|
|
Involved in Discussions
Registration Date: Mar 2011
|
|
Posts: 39
Thanks Given to Others: 43
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Karma Power: 13 Karma: 10 
|
|
|
Re: Regression Analysis for the Attached Data - help needed - TIA
Quote:
In Reply to Parent Post by Barbara B
What do you mean with "changed"? Different values for the input variables? Different equation structure (e.g. quadratic effects additional to main effects, interactions)?
|
I was asking about the different equation structure. Because I was working with a different set of data and the equation that I used there doesn't work with the equation for the data attached in this thread...
|

4th July 2012, 05:46 PM
|
|
Involved in Discussions
Registration Date: Mar 2011
|
|
Posts: 39
Thanks Given to Others: 43
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Karma Power: 13 Karma: 10 
|
|
|
Re: Regression Analysis for the Attached Data - help needed - TIA
Just a clarification on the interpretation of the equation..does it mean that the variables C,G,H and I negatively impacts the dependent variable? Thanks a lot..so in this case if we will go with G for instance it will negatively affects the overall (which is the dpendent variable)...
|

5th July 2012, 02:10 AM
|
 |
Number Cruncher
Registration Date: May 2005
Location: Germany
|
|
Posts: 390
Thanks Given to Others: 95
Thanked 270 Times in 173 Posts
Karma Power: 79
|
|
|
Re: Regression Analysis for the Attached Data - help needed - TIA
Quote:
In Reply to Parent Post by quick_silver
I was asking about the different equation structure. Because I was working with a different set of data and the equation that I used there doesn't work with the equation for the data attached in this thread...
|
The coefficients will change if you're using different data and/or model structure, because they are calculated out of the data values with respect to the model structure.
If you're using a statistical software package instead of Excel you'll get not only the coefficients but also a whole bunch of informations about several other relevant aspects of a model: - effect size of an input variable, e.g. "Is G a vital factor to explain the outcom 'Dependent Variable'?" The answer is "no" here for your data and a model with main effects only, because the p value is high (p=0.365).
- observations which aren't properly described by the model, e.g. high standardized residuals for obs. no. 11, 12, 18, 32, 55, 88, 98 and 125.
- adjusted coefficient of determination R˛(adj) to assess the reliability of a model and as a figure for comparison of different models (higher is better), e.g. R˛(adj)=86.57% (good) for the main effects model.
- confidence intervals for coefficients to assess the certainty of statements derived out of the model, e.g. the coefficient of A in the main effects model (coef[A]=0.4666) has a 95% confidence interval of ( 0.4238 ; 0.5095 ).
- VIFs (variance inflation factors) to evaluate the stability of a model and multicollinearity amoung the input variables. VIFs should be small with 1 being the optimal value. For VIFs above 10 the input variables are highly correlated among themselves, so the recommendation is to have VIFs smaller than 5. Conclusions drawn out of an instable model could be misleading. In your model with main effects only the VIFs are smaller than 1.8 (good), but if you're trying to fit interactions (e.g. A*B) or quadratic effects (A*A) the VIFs are getting huge (e.g. with A*B maximum of VIF is 108.7 and with A*A the highest VIF value is 87.8 - way too high for a stable model in both cases).
- variation not explained by the model in the unity of the response, e.g. S=0.1483[unity of 'Dependent Variable'] for the main effects model
- predicted R˛ for evaluation of the reliability of predictions for new data, e.g. R˛(pred)=66.71% (a little bit too small)f or the main effects model.
- graphs and tests to assess the model quality and Gauss-Markov assumptions (see
Gauss–Markov_theorem), usually done via the residuals graphs and test of normality for the residuals. For your data with all observations the residuals aren't normally distributed due to unusual observations (see above), but the rest looks okay (no pattern, trends, etc. in the residuals vs. fits and residuals vs. obs no graphs).
- Prediction AND prediction intervals, e.g. if all input variables are set to their means you'll get a fit/predicted value of 3.32682 and a 95% prediction interval (3.03224 ; 3.62141).
Therefore I won't recommend Excel for modelling, because the calculation of coefficients and fits only isn't sufficient to evaluate the model and be sure to get good, reliable statements and conclusions out of the model
Quote:
In Reply to Parent Post by quick_silver
Just a clarification on the interpretation of the equation..does it mean that the variables C,G,H and I negatively impacts the dependent variable? Thanks a lot..so in this case if we will go with G for instance it will negatively affects the overall (which is the dpendent variable)...
|
Yes, that's correct  As stated before G doesn't have a vital (significant) impact on the 'Dependent Variable' and could be removed from the model, but the negative impact of C, H and I remains even if G is excluded.
|
|
Thank You to Barbara B for your informative Post and/or Attachment!
|
|
Lower Navigation Bar
|
|
|
Do you find this discussion thread helpful and informational?
|
Visitors Currently Viewing this Thread: 1 (0 Registered Visitors (Members) and 1 Unregistered Guest Visitors)
|
|
|
| Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
|
| Display Modes |
Rate Thread Content |
Linear Mode
|
|
Forum Posting Settings
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|