242 views

Original Title: Newbold Book Solutions

Uploaded by bortycan

- Newbold Stat8 Ism 09 Ge
- _newbold_ism_06.pdf
- _newbold_ism_10.pdf
- statistik uas
- _newbold_ism_07.pdf
- Output Regression MRIS - Copy
- Newbold
- _newbold_ism_08.pdf
- 07 Simple Linear Regression Part2
- Simple LR Lecture.ppt
- Potato Starch
- Bs Project Grp 8
- Confidence Intervals
- newbold_stat7_ism_10
- _newbold_ism_04.pdf
- Forensic Dental Age Estimation by Measuring Root Dentin Translucency Area Using a New Digital Technique
- Multivariate Linear Regression
- Principal Components Regression
- THE IMPACT OF LEADERSHIP STYLES ON JOB SATISFACTION AT WORK PLACE.pdf
- LM11 Fixed (1)

You are on page 1of 65

Chapter 13:

Multiple Regression

a. y 10 3(20) 2(11) 4(10) = 132

b. y 10 3(15) 2(14) 4(20) = 163

c. y 10 3(35) 2(19) 4(25) = 253

d. y 10 3(10) 2(17) 4(30) = 194

13.2 Given the following estimated linear model: y 10 5 x1 4 x2 2 x3

a. y 10 5(20) 4(11) 2(10) = 174

b. y 10 5(15) 4(14) 2(20) = 181

c. y 10 5(35) 4(19) 2(25) = 311

d. y 10 5(10) 4(17) 2(30) = 188

13.3 Given the following estimated linear model: y 10 2 x1 12 x2 8 x3

a. y 10 2(20) 12(11) 8(10) = 262

b. y 10 2(15) 12(24) 8(20) = 488

c. y 10 2(20) 12(19) 8(25) = 478

d. y 10 2(10) 12(9) 8(30) = 378

13.4 Given the following estimated linear model: y 10 2 x1 12 x2 8 x3

a. y increases by 8

b. y increases by 8

c. y increases by 24

a. y increases by 8

13.5 Given the following estimated linear model: y 10 2 x1 14 x2 6 x3

a. y decreases by 8

b. y decreases by 6

c. y increases by 28

19

13.6

b1 = .661: All else equal, an increase in the planes top speed by one mph

will increase the expected number of hours in the design effort by an

estimated .661 million or 661 thousand worker-hours.

b2 = .065: All else equal, an increase in the planes weight by one ton will

increase the expected number of hours in the design effort by an estimated .

065 million or 65 thousand worker-hours

b3 = -.018: All else equal, an increase in the percentage of parts in common

with other models will result in a decrease in the expected number of hours

in the design effort by an estimated .018 million or 18 thousand workerhours

13.7

b1 = .057: All else equal, an increase of one unit in the change over the

quarter in bond purchases by financial institutions results in an estimated .

057 increase in the change over the quarter in the bond interest rate

b2 = -.065: All else equal, an increase of one unit in the change over the

quarter in bond sales by financial institutions results in an estimated .065

decrease in the change over the quarter in the bond interest rates

13.8

weekly income results in an estimated .052 quarts per week increase in

milk consumption. b2 = 1.14: All else equal, an increase in family size

by one person will result in an estimated increase in milk consumption

by 1.14 quarts per week.

b. The intercept term b0 of -.025 is the estimated milk consumption of

quarts of milk per week given that the familys weekly income is 0

dollars and there are 0 members in the family. This is likely

extrapolating beyond the observed data series and is not a useful

interpretation.

13.9

a. b1 = .653: All else equal, a one unit increase in the average number

of meals eaten per week will result in an estimated .653 pounds gained

during freshman year.

b2 = -1.345: All else equal, a one unit increase in the average number of

hours of exercise per week will result in an estimated 1.345 pound

weight loss.

b3 = .613: All else equal, a one unit increase in the average number of

beers consumed per week will result in an estimated .613 pound weight

gain.

b. The intercept term b0 of 7.35 is the estimated amount of weight gain

during the freshman year given that the meals eaten is 0, hours exercise

is 0 and there are no beers consumed per week. This is likely

extrapolating beyond the observed data series and is not a useful

interpretation.

13.10 Compute the slope coefficients for the model: yi b0 b1 x1i b2 x2i

Given that b1

sx1 (1 r 2 x1x2 )

, b2

sx2 (1 r 2 x1x2 )

400(.60 (.50)(.70))

400(.70 (.50)(.60))

= 2.000, b2

= 3.200

2

200(1 .50 )

200(1 .502 )

400(.60 (.50)(.70))

b. b1

= -.667,

200(1 (.50) 2 )

400(.70 ( .50)(.60))

b2

= 1.067

200(1 (.50) 2 )

400(.40 (.80)(.45))

400(.45 (.80)(.40))

c. b1

=.083, b2

= .271

2

200(1 (.80) )

200(1 (.80)2 )

400(.60 (.60)(.50))

d. b1

= .9375,

200(1 (.60) 2 )

400(.50 (.60)(.60))

b1

= -.4375

200(1 (.60) 2 )

a. b1

simplifies to the slope coefficient of the bivariate regression: Start with

s y (rx1 y rx1x2 rx2 y )

equation 13.4: b1

. Note that if the correlation between

sx1 (1 r 2 x1x2 )

X1 and X2 is zero, then the second terms in both the numerator and

denominator are zero and the formula algebraically reduces to b1

s y rx1 y

sx1

which is the equivalent of the bivariate slope coefficient (see box on bottom

of page 380).

b. When the correlation between X1 and X2 is = 1, then the second term in the

denominator goes to 0 and the slope coefficient is undefined.

13.12 a. Electricity sales as a function of number of customers and price

Regression Analysis: salesmw2 versus priclec2, numcust2

The regression equation is

salesmw2 = - 647363 + 19895 priclec2 + 2.35 numcust2

Predictor

Coef

SE Coef

T

P

Constant

-647363

291734

-2.22

0.030

priclec2

19895

22515

0.88

0.380

numcust2

2.3530

0.2233

10.54

0.000

S = 66399

R-Sq

Analysis of Variance

Source

DF

Regression

2

Residual Error

61

Total

63

= 79.2%

R-Sq(adj) = 78.5%

SS

MS

1.02480E+12 5.12400E+11

2.68939E+11 4408828732

1.29374E+12

F

116.22

P

0.000

20

21

All else equal, for every one unit increase in the price of electricity, we estimate

that sales will increase by 19895 mwh. Note that this estimated coefficient is not

significantly different from zero (p-value = .380).

All else equal, for every additional residential customer who uses electricity in the

heating of their home, we estimate that sales will increase by 2.353 mwh.

b. Electricity sales as a function of number of customers

Regression Analysis: salesmw2 versus numcust2

The regression equation is

salesmw2 = - 410202 + 2.20 numcust2

Predictor

Coef

SE Coef

Constant

-410202

114132

numcust2

2.2027

0.1445

S = 66282

R-Sq

Analysis of Variance

Source

DF

Regression

1

Residual Error

62

Total

63

= 78.9%

T

-3.59

15.25

P

0.001

0.000

R-Sq(adj) = 78.6%

SS

MS

1.02136E+12 1.02136E+12

2.72381E+11 4393240914

1.29374E+12

F

232.48

P

0.000

The two models have roughly equivalent explanatory power; therefore, adding

price as a variable does not add a significant amount of explanatory power to the

model. There appears to be a problem of high correlation between the independent

variables of price and customers.

c.

Regression Analysis: salesmw2 versus priclec2, degrday2

The regression equation is

salesmw2 = 2312260 - 165275 priclec2 + 56.1 degrday2

Predictor

Coef

SE Coef

T

P

Constant

2312260

148794

15.54

0.000

priclec2

-165275

24809

-6.66

0.000

degrday2

56.06

60.37

0.93

0.357

S = 110725

R-Sq

Analysis of Variance

Source

DF

Regression

2

Residual Error

61

Total

63

= 42.2%

R-Sq(adj) = 40.3%

SS

MS

5.45875E+11 2.72938E+11

7.47863E+11 12260053296

1.29374E+12

F

22.26

P

0.000

All else equal, an increase in the price of electricity will reduce electricity sales by

165,275 mwh.

All else equal, an increase in the degree days (departure from normal weather) by

one unit will increase electricity sales by 56.06 mwh.

Note that the coefficient on the price variable is now negative, as expected, and it

is significantly different from zero (p-value = .000)

22

d.

Regression Analysis: salesmw2 versus Yd872, degrday2

The regression equation is

salesmw2 = 293949 + 326 Yd872 + 58.4 degrday2

Predictor

Coef

SE Coef

T

Constant

293949

67939

4.33

Yd872

325.85

21.30

15.29

degrday2

58.36

35.79

1.63

S = 66187

R-Sq

Analysis of Variance

Source

DF

Regression

2

Residual Error

61

Total

63

= 79.3%

P

0.000

0.000

0.108

R-Sq(adj) = 78.7%

SS

MS

1.02652E+12 5.13259E+11

2.67221E+11 4380674677

1.29374E+12

F

117.16

P

0.000

All else equal, an increase in personal disposable income by one unit will increase

electricity sales by 325.85 mwh.

All else equal, an increase in degree days by one unit will increase electricity sales

by 58.36 mwh.

13.13 a. mpg as a function of horsepower and weight

Regression Analysis: milpgal versus horspwr, weight

The regression equation is

milpgal = 55.8 - 0.105 horspwr - 0.00661 weight

150 cases used 5 cases contain missing values

Predictor

Coef

SE Coef

T

P

Constant

55.769

1.448

38.51

0.000

horspwr

-0.10489

0.02233

-4.70

0.000

weight

-0.0066143

0.0009015

-7.34

0.000

S = 3.901

R-Sq = 72.3%

R-Sq(adj) = 72.0%

Analysis of Variance

Source

DF

SS

MS

F

Regression

2

5850.0

2925.0

192.23

Residual Error

147

2236.8

15.2

Total

149

8086.8

P

0.000

All else equal, a one unit increase in the horsepower of the engine will reduce fuel

mileage by .10489 mpg. All else equal, an increase in the weight of the car by 100

pounds will reduce fuel mileage by .66143 mpg.

b. Add number of cylinders

Regression Analysis: milpgal versus horspwr, weight, cylinder

The regression equation is

milpgal = 55.9 - 0.117 horspwr - 0.00758 weight

150 cases used 5 cases contain missing values

Predictor

Coef

SE Coef

T

Constant

55.925

1.443

38.77

horspwr

-0.11744

0.02344

-5.01

weight

-0.007576

0.001066

-7.10

cylinder

0.7260

0.4362

1.66

+ 0.726 cylinder

P

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.098

S = 3.878

R-Sq = 72.9%

R-Sq(adj) = 72.3%

Analysis of Variance

Source

DF

SS

MS

F

Regression

3

5891.6

1963.9

130.62

Residual Error

146

2195.1

15.0

Total

149

8086.8

P

0.000

23

All else equal, one additional cylinder in the engine of the auto will increase fuel

mileage by .726 mpg. Note that this is not significant at the .05 level (p-value = .

098).

Horsepower and weight still have the expected negative signs

c. mpg as a function of weight, number of cylinders

Regression Analysis: milpgal versus weight, cylinder

The regression equation is

milpgal = 55.9 - 0.0104 weight + 0.121 cylinder

154 cases used 1 cases contain missing values

Predictor

Coef

SE Coef

T

P

Constant

55.914

1.525

36.65

0.000

weight

-0.0103680

0.0009779

-10.60

0.000

cylinder

0.1207

0.4311

0.28

0.780

S = 4.151

R-Sq = 68.8%

R-Sq(adj) = 68.3%

Analysis of Variance

Source

DF

SS

MS

F

Regression

2

5725.0

2862.5

166.13

Residual Error

151

2601.8

17.2

Total

153

8326.8

P

0.000

All else equal, an increase in the weight of the car by 100 pounds will reduce fuel

mileage by 1.0368 mpg. All else equal, an increase in the number of cylinders in

the engine will increase mpg by .1207 mpg.

The explanatory power of the models has stayed relatively the same with a slight

drop in explanatory power for the latest regression model.

Note that the coefficient on weight has stayed negative and significant (p-values

of .000) for all of the regression models; although the value of the coefficient has

changed. The number of cylinders is not significantly different from zero in either

of the models where it was used as an independent variable. There is likely some

correlation between cylinders and the weight of the car as well as between

cylinders and the horsepower of the car.

d. mpg as a function of horsepower, weight, price

Regression Analysis: milpgal versus horspwr, weight, price

The regression equation is

milpgal = 54.4 - 0.0938 horspwr - 0.00735 weight +0.000137 price

150 cases used 5 cases contain missing values

Predictor

Coef

SE Coef

T

P

Constant

54.369

1.454

37.40

0.000

horspwr

-0.09381

0.02177

-4.31

0.000

weight

-0.0073518

0.0008950

-8.21

0.000

price

0.00013721 0.00003950

3.47

0.001

S = 3.762

R-Sq = 74.5%

R-Sq(adj) = 73.9%

Analysis of Variance

Source

DF

SS

MS

F

Regression

3

6020.7

2006.9

141.82

Residual Error

146

2066.0

14.2

Total

149

8086.8

P

0.000

All else equal, an increase by one unit in the horsepower of the auto will reduce

fuel mileage by .09381 mpg. All else equal, an increase by 100 pounds in the

weight of the auto will reduce fuel mileage by .73518 mpg and an increase in the

price of the auto by one dollar will increase fuel mileage by .00013721 mpg.

24

e.

Horse power and weight remain significant negative independent variables

throughout whereas the number of cylinders has been insignificant. The size of the

coefficients change as the combinations of independent variables changes. This is

likely due to strong correlation that may exist between the independent variables.

13.14

Regression Analysis: horspwr versus weight, displace

The regression equation is

horspwr = 23.5 + 0.0154 weight + 0.157 displace

151 cases used 4 cases contain missing values

Predictor

Coef

SE Coef

T

P

Constant

23.496

7.341

3.20

0.002

weight

0.015432

0.004538

3.40

0.001

displace

0.15667

0.03746

4.18

0.000

S = 13.64

R-Sq = 69.2%

R-Sq(adj) = 68.8%

Analysis of Variance

Source

DF

SS

MS

F

Regression

2

61929

30964

166.33

Residual Error

148

27551

186

Total

150

89480

VIF

6.0

6.0

P

0.000

All else equal, a 100 pound increase in the weight of the car is associated with a

1.54 increase in horsepower of the auto.

All else equal, a 10 cubic inch increase in the displacement of the engine is

associated with a 1.57 increase in the horsepower of the auto.

b. Horsepower as a function of weight, displacement, number of cylinders

Regression Analysis: horspwr versus weight, displace, cylinder

The regression equation is

horspwr = 16.7 + 0.0163 weight + 0.105 displace + 2.57 cylinder

151 cases used 4 cases contain missing values

Predictor

Coef

SE Coef

T

P

VIF

Constant

16.703

9.449

1.77

0.079

weight

0.016261

0.004592

3.54

0.001

6.2

displace

0.10527

0.05859

1.80

0.074

14.8

cylinder

2.574

2.258

1.14

0.256

7.8

S = 13.63

R-Sq = 69.5%

R-Sq(adj) = 68.9%

Analysis of Variance

Source

DF

SS

MS

F

Regression

3

62170

20723

111.55

Residual Error

147

27310

186

Total

150

89480

P

0.000

All else equal, a 100 pound increase in the weight of the car is associated with a

1.63 increase in horsepower of the auto.

All else equal, a 10 cubic inch increase in the displacement of the engine is

associated with a 1.05 increase in the horsepower of the auto.

All else equal, one additional cylinder in the engine is associated with a 2.57

increase in the horsepower of the auto.

Note that adding the independent variable number of cylinders has not added to the

explanatory power of the model. R square has increased marginally. Engine

displacement is no longer significant at the .05 level (p-value of .074) and the

estimated regression slope coefficient on the number of cylinders is not

25

significantly different from zero. This is due to the strong correlation that exists

between cubic inches of engine displacement and the number of cylinders.

c. Horsepower as a function of weight, displacement and fuel mileage

Regression Analysis: horspwr versus weight, displace, milpgal

The regression equation is

horspwr = 93.6 + 0.00203 weight + 0.165 displace - 1.24 milpgal

150 cases used 5 cases contain missing values

Predictor

Coef

SE Coef

T

P

VIF

Constant

93.57

15.33

6.11

0.000

weight

0.002031

0.004879

0.42

0.678

8.3

displace

0.16475

0.03475

4.74

0.000

6.1

milpgal

-1.2392

0.2474

-5.01

0.000

3.1

S = 12.55

R-Sq = 74.2%

R-Sq(adj) = 73.6%

Analysis of Variance

Source

DF

SS

MS

F

Regression

3

66042

22014

139.77

Residual Error

146

22994

157

Total

149

89036

P

0.000

All else equal, a 100 pound increase in the weight of the car is associated with a .

203 increase in horsepower of the auto.

All else equal, a 10 cubic inch increase in the displacement of the engine is

associated with a 1.6475 increase in the horsepower of the auto.

All else equal, an increase in the fuel mileage of the vehicle by 1 mile per gallon is

associated with a reduction in horsepower of 1.2392.

Note that the negative coefficient on fuel mileage indicates the trade-off that is

expected between horsepower and fuel mileage. The displacement variable is

significantly positive, as expected, however, the weight variable is no longer

significant. Again, one would expect high correlation among the independent

variables.

d. Horsepower as a function of weight, displacement, mpg and price

Regression Analysis: horspwr versus weight, displace, milpgal, price

The regression equation is

horspwr = 98.1 - 0.00032 weight + 0.175 displace - 1.32 milpgal

+0.000138 price

150 cases used 5 cases contain missing values

Predictor

Coef

SE Coef

T

P

VIF

Constant

98.14

16.05

6.11

0.000

weight

-0.000324

0.005462

-0.06

0.953

10.3

displace

0.17533

0.03647

4.81

0.000

6.8

milpgal

-1.3194

0.2613

-5.05

0.000

3.5

price

0.0001379

0.0001438

0.96

0.339

1.3

S = 12.55

R-Sq = 74.3%

R-Sq(adj) = 73.6%

Analysis of Variance

Source

DF

SS

MS

F

Regression

4

66187

16547

105.00

Residual Error

145

22849

158

Total

149

89036

P

0.000

is negatively related to horsepower and price is not significant.

e. Explanatory power has marginally increased from the first model to the last.

The estimated coefficient on price is not significantly different from zero.

Displacement and fuel mileage have the expected signs. The coefficient on

weight has the wrong sign; however, it is not significantly different from zero

(p-value of .953).

13.15

SSE

SSR

SSE

1

Given that SST = SSR + SSE, s 2 e

, R2

,

n k 1

SST

SST

SSE (n k 1)

R2 1

SST (n 1)

500

a. SSE = 500, s 2 e

= 19.2308, se = 4.3853

30 3 1

b. SST = SSR + SSE = 4,500 + 500 = 5,000

500 (26)

4500

500

2

1

c. R 2

= .90, R 1

= .8885

5000 (29)

5000

5000

13.16

SSE

SSR

SSE

1

Given that SST = SSR + SSE, s 2 e

, R2

,

n k 1

SST

SST

SSE (n k 1)

R2 1

SST (n 1)

2500

a. SSE = 2500, s 2 e

= 86.207, se =9.2848

32 2 1

b. SST = SSR + SSE = 7,000 + 2,500 = 9,500

2500 (29)

7000

2500

2

1

c. R 2

= .7368, R 1

= .7086

9500 (31)

9500

9500

13.17

SSE

SSR

SSE

1

Given that SST = SSR + SSE, s 2 e

, R2

,

n k 1

SST

SST

SSE (n k 1)

R2 1

SST (n 1)

10000

a. SSE = 10,000, s 2 e

= 222.222, se =14.9071

50 4 1

b. SST = SSR + SSE = 40,000 + 10,000 = 50,000

10, 000 (45)

40, 000

10, 000

2

2

1

c. R

= .80, R 1

= .7822

50, 0 00 (49)

50, 000

50, 000

26

27

13.18

SSE

SSR

SSE

1

Given that SST = SSR + SSE, s 2 e

, R2

,

n k 1

SST

SST

SSE (n k 1)

R2 1

SST (n 1)

15, 000

a. SSE = 15,000, s 2 e

= 75.0, se = 8.660

206 5 1

b. SST = SSR + SSE = 80,000 + 15,000 = 95,000

10, 000 (45)

80, 000

15, 000

2

2

1

c. R

= .8421, R 1

= .7822

50, 0 00 (49)

95, 000

95, 000

13.19

13.20

13.21

3.549

.9145 , therefore, 91.45% of the variability in work-hours

3.881

of design effort can be explained by the variation in the planes top speed,

weight and percentage number of parts in common with other models.

b. SSE = 3.881-3.549 = .332

.332 /(27 4)

.9033

c. R 2 1

3.881/ 26

d. R .9145 .9563 . This is the sample correlation between observed and

predicted values of the design effort

a. R 2

88.2

.5441 , therefore, 54.41% of the variability in milk

162.1

consumption can be explained by the variations in weekly income and family

size.

73.9 /(30 3)

.5103

b. R 2 1

162.1/ 29

c. R .5441 .7376 . This is the sample correlation between observed and

predicted values of milk consumption.

a. R 2

79.2

.6331 , therefore, 63.31% of the variability in weight

79.2 45.9

gain can be explained by the variations in the average number of meals eaten,

number of hours exercised and number of beers consumed weekly.

45.9 /(25 4)

.5807

b. R 2 1

125.1/ 24

c. R .6331 .7957 . This is the sample correlation between observed and

predicted values of weight gained

a. R 2

13.22

a.

Regression Analysis: Y profit versus X2 offices

The regression equation is

Y profit = 1.55 -0.000120 X2 offices

Predictor

Coef

SE Coef

Constant

1.5460

0.1048

X2 offi -0.00012033 0.00001434

T

14.75

-8.39

P

0.000

0.000

S = 0.07049

R-Sq = 75.4%

R-Sq(adj) = 74.3%

Analysis of Variance

Source

DF

SS

MS

F

Regression

1

0.34973

0.34973

70.38

Residual Error

23

0.11429

0.00497

Total

24

0.46402

P

0.000

b.

Regression Analysis: X1 revenue versus X2 offices

The regression equation is

X1 revenue = - 0.078 +0.000543 X2

Predictor

Constant

X2 offi

Coef

-0.0781

0.00054280

SE Coef

0.2975

0.00004070

offices

T

-0.26

13.34

P

0.795

0.000

S = 0.2000

R-Sq = 88.5%

R-Sq(adj) = 88.1%

Analysis of Variance

Source

DF

SS

MS

F

Regression

1

7.1166

7.1166

177.84

Residual Error

23

0.9204

0.0400

Total

24

8.0370

P

0.000

c.

Regression Analysis: Y profit versus X1 revenue

The regression equation is

Y profit = 1.33 - 0.169 X1 revenue

Predictor

Coef

SE Coef

Constant

1.3262

0.1386

X1 reven

-0.16913

0.03559

T

9.57

-4.75

P

0.000

0.000

S = 0.1009

R-Sq = 49.5%

R-Sq(adj) = 47.4%

Analysis of Variance

Source

DF

SS

MS

F

Regression

1

0.22990

0.22990

22.59

Residual Error

23

0.23412

0.01018

Total

24

0.46402

P

0.000

d.

Regression Analysis: X2 offices versus X1 revenue

The regression equation is

X2 offices = 957 + 1631 X1 revenue

Predictor

Coef

SE Coef

Constant

956.9

476.5

X1 reven

1631.3

122.3

T

2.01

13.34

P

0.057

0.000

S = 346.8

R-Sq = 88.5%

R-Sq(adj) = 88.1%

Analysis of Variance

Source

DF

SS

MS

F

Regression

1

21388013

21388013

177.84

Residual Error

23

2766147

120267

Total

24

24154159

P

0.000

28

29

13.23

Given the following results where the numbers in parentheses are the sample

standard error of the coefficient estimates

a. Compute two-sided 95% confidence intervals for the three regression slope

coefficients

b j tn k 1, 2 sb j

95% CI for x1 = 4.8 2.086 (2.1); .4194 up to 9.1806

95% CI for x2 = 6.9 2.086 (3.7); -.8182 up to 14.6182

95% CI for x3 = -7.2 2.086 (2.8); -13.0408 up to -1.3592

b. Test the hypothesis H 0 : j 0, H1 : j 0

4.8

2.286 t20,.05 /.01 = 1.725, 2.528

For x1: t

2.1

Therefore, reject H 0 at the 5% level but not at the 1% level

6.9

1.865 t20,.05 /.01 = 1.725, 2.528

For x2: t

3.7

Therefore, reject H 0 at the 5% level but not at the 1% level

7.2

2.571 t20,.05/.01 = 1.725, 2.528

For x3: t

2.8

Therefore, do not reject H 0 at either level

13.24

Given the following results where the numbers in parentheses are the sample

standard error of the coefficient estimates

a. Compute two-sided 95% confidence intervals for the three regression slope

coefficients

b j tn k 1, 2 sb j

95% CI for x1 = 6.8 2.042 (3.1); .4698 up to 13.1302

95% CI for x2 = 6.9 2.042 (3.7); -6.4554 up to 14.4554

95% CI for x3 = -7.2 2.042 (3.2); -13.7344 up to -.6656

b. Test the hypothesis H 0 : j 0, H1 : j 0

6.8

2.194 t30,.05 /.01 = 1.697, 2.457

For x1: t

3.1

Therefore, reject H 0 at the 5% level but not at the 1% level

6.9

1.865 t30,.05 /.01 = 1.697, 2.457

For x2: t

3.7

Therefore, reject H 0 at the 5% level but not at the 1% level

7.2

2.25 t30,.05 /.01 = 1.697, 2.457

For x3: t

3.2

Therefore, do not reject H 0 at the 5% level nor the 1% level

13.25

Given the following results where the numbers in parentheses are the sample

standard error of the coefficient estimates

a. Compute two-sided 95% confidence intervals for the three regression slope

coefficients

b j tn k 1, 2 sb j

95% CI for x1 = 34.8 2.000 (12.1); 10.60 up to 59.0

95% CI for x2 = 56.9 2.000 (23.7); 9.50 up to 104.30

95% CI for x3 = -57.2 2.000 (32.8); -122.80 up to 8.40

b. Test the hypothesis H 0 : j 0, H1 : j 0

34.8

2.876 t60,.05/.01 = 1.671, 2.390

For x1: t

12.1

Therefore, reject H 0 at the 5% level but not at the 1% level

56.9

2.401 t60,.05/.01 = 1.671, 2.390

For x2: t

23.7

Therefore, reject H 0 at the 5% level but not at the 1% level

57.2

1.744 t60,.05 /.01 = 1.671, 2.390

For x3: t

32.8

Therefore, do not reject H 0 at either level

13.26

Given the following results where the numbers in parentheses are the sample

standard error of the coefficient estimates

a. Compute two-sided 95% confidence intervals for the three regression slope

coefficients

b j tn k 1, 2 sb j

95% CI for x1 = 17.8 2.042 (7.1); 3.3018 up to 32.2982

95% CI for x2 = 26.9 2.042 (13.7); -1.0754 up to 54.8754

95% CI for x3 = -9.2 2.042 (3.8); -16.9596 up to -1.44

b. Test the hypothesis H 0 : j 0, H1 : j 0

17.8

2.507 t35,.05 /.01 1.697, 2.457

For x1: t

7.1

Therefore, reject H 0 at the 5% level but not at the 1% level

26.9

1.964 t35,.05 /.01 1.697, 2.457

For x2: t

13.7

Therefore, reject H 0 at the 5% level but not at the 1% level

9.2

2.421 t35,.05 /.01 1.697, 2.457

For x3: t

3.8

Therefore, do not reject H 0 at either level

13.27

90% CI: .661 1.714(.099); .4913 up to .8307

30

31

b. b2 .065, sb 2 .032, t23,.025/.005 2.069, 2.807

95% CI: .065 2.069(.032); -.0012 up to .1312

99% CI: .065 2.807(.032); -.0248 up to .1548

H

c. 0 : 2 0, H1 : 2 0

.065

t

2.031

.032

t23,.05 /.025 = 1.714, 2.069

Therefore, reject H 0 at the 10% level but not at the 5% level

d. H 0 : 1 2 0, H1 : At least one i 0, (i 1, 2)

(3.311 .332) / 2

F

103.188

.332 / 23

Therefore, reject H 0 at the 1% level since F = 103.188 > 5.66 = F 2,23,.01

13.28

a. H 0 : 1 0; H1 : 1 0

.052

t

2.26

.023

t27,.025 /.01 2.052, 2.473

Therefore, reject H 0 at the 2.5% level but not at the 1% level

b. t27,.05/.025 /.005 1.703, 2.052, 2.771

90% CI: 1.14 1.703(.35); .5439 up to 1.7361

95% CI: 1.14 2.052(.35); .4218 up to 1.8582

99% CI: 1.14 2.771(.35); .1701 up to 2.1099

13.29

a. H 0 : 2 0; H1 : 2 0

1.345

t

2.381

.565

t21,.025/.01 2.080, 2.518

Therefore, reject H 0 at the 2.5% level but not at the 1% level

b. H 0 : 3 0; H1 : 3 0

.613

t

2.523

.243

t21,.01/.005 2.518, 2.831

Therefore, reject H 0 at the 1% level but not at the .5% level

c. t21,.05 /.025 /.005 1.721, 2.080, 2.831

90% CI: .653 1.721(.189); .3277 up to .9783

95% CI: .653 2.080(.189); .2599 up to 1.0461

99% CI: .653 2.831(.189); .1179 up to 1.1881

32

13.30 a. H 0 : 3 0, H1 : 3 0

.000191

t

.428

.000446

t16,.10 = -1.337

Therefore, do not reject H 0 at the 20% level

b. H 0 : 1 2 3 0, H1 : At least one i 0, (i 1, 2,3)

16 .71

F

13.057 , F 3,16,.01 = 5.29

3 1 .71

Therefore, reject H 0 at the 1% level

13.31 a. t85,.025 /.005 2.000, 2.660

90% CI: 7.878 2.000(1.809); 4.260 up to 11.496

95% CI: 7.878 2.660(1.809); 3.0661 up to 12.6899

.003666

2.73 , t85,.005 2.660

b. H 0 : 2 0; H1 : 2 0 , t

.001344

Therefore, reject H 0 at the .5% level

13.32

a. All else being equal, an extra $1 in mean per capita personal income leads

to an expected extra $.04 of net revenue per capita from the lottery

b. b2 .8772, sb 2 .3107, n 29, t24,.025 2.064

95% CI: .8772 2.064(.3107), .2359 up to 1.5185

c. H 0 : 3 0, H1 : 3 0

365.01

t

1.383

263.88

t24,.10 /.05 = -1.318, -1.711

Therefore, reject H 0 at the 10% level but not at the 5% level

95% CI: 7.653 2.131(3.082), 1.0853 up to 14.2207

19.729

2.194

b. H 0 : 2 0, H1 : 2 0 , t

8.992

t15,.025/.01 = 2.131, 2.602

Therefore, reject H 0 at the 2.5% level but not at the 1% level

13.34 a. n 19, b1 .2, sb 1 .0092, t16,.025 2.12

95% CI: .2 2.12(.0092), .1805 up to .2195

.1

1.19

b. H 0 : 2 0, H1 : 2 0 , t

.084

33

13.35 a. n 14, b1 .101, sb 1 .023, t10,.05 1.812

90% CI: .101 1.812(.023), .0593 up to .1427

.244

3.05

b. H 0 : 2 0, H1 : 2 0 , t

.08

t10,.01/.005 = -2.764, -3.169

Therefore, reject H 0 at the 1% level but not at the .5% level

c. H 0 : 3 0, H1 : 3 0

.057

t

6.162

.00925

t10,.005 = 3.169

Therefore, reject H 0 at the .5% level

13.36 a. n 39, b5 .0495, sb 1 .01172, t30,.005 2.750

99% CI: .0495 2.750(.01172), .0173 up to .0817

H

b. 0 : 4 0, H1 : 4 0

.48122

t

.617

.77954

t30,.10 = 1.31

Therefore, do not reject H 0 at the 20% level

c. H 0 : 7 0, H1 : 7 0

.00645

t

2.108

.00306

t30,.025/.01 = 2.042, 2.457

Therefore, reject H 0 at the 5% level but not at the 2% level

13.37 Test the hypothesis that all three of the predictor variables are equal to zero given

the following Analysis of Variance tables

a. H 0 : 1 2 3 0, H1 : At least one i 0, (i 1, 2,3)

SSR k

MSR

4500 3

F

2 =

= 78.0, F 3,26,.05 = 2.98

SSE (n k 1)

se

500 26

Therefore, reject H 0 at the 5% level

b. H 0 : 1 2 3 0, H1 : At least one i 0, (i 1, 2,3)

SSR k

MSR

9780 3

F

2 =

= 40.362, F 3,26,.05 = 2.98

SSE (n k 1)

se

2100 26

Therefore, reject H 0 at the 5% level

SSR k

MSR

46, 000 3

F

2 =

= 15.9467, F 3,26,.05 = 2.98

SSE (n k 1)

se

25, 000 26

Therefore, reject H 0 at the 5% level

d. H 0 : 1 2 3 0, H1 : At least one i 0, (i 1, 2,3)

SSR k

MSR

87, 000 3

F

2 =

= 15.3708, F 3,26,.05 = 2.98

SSE (n k 1)

se

48, 000 26

Therefore, reject H 0 at the 5% level

13.38 a. SST = 3.881, SSR = 3.549, SSE = .332

H 0 : 1 2 3 0, H1 : At least one i 0, (i 1, 2,3)

3.549 / 3

F

81.955

.332 / 23

F 3,23,.01 = 4.76

Therefore, reject H 0 at the 1% level.

b. Analysis of Variance table:

Sources of

Sum of Degress of

variation

Squares

Freedom

Regressor

3.549

3

Error

.332

23

Total

3.881

26

Mean Squares

1.183

.014435

F-Ratio

81.955

45 .463 (2 / 45)

F

21.262

2

1 .463

F 2,45,.01 = 5.18

Therefore, reject H 0 at the 1% level

13.40 a. SST = 162.1, SSR =88.2, SSE = 73.9

H 0 : 1 2 0, H1 : At least one i 0, (i 1, 2)

88.2 / 2

F

16.113 , F 2,27,.01 = 5.49

73.9 / 27

Therefore, reject H 0 at the 1% level

b.

Sources of

Sum of

Degress of

variation

Squares

Freedom Mean Squares

Regressor

88.2

2

44.10

Error

73.9

27

2.737

Total

162.1

29

13.41 a. SST = 125.1, SSR = 79.2, SSE = 45.9

F-Ratio

16.113

34

35

79.2 / 3

F

12.078 , F 3,21,.01 = 4.87

45.9 / 21

Therefore, reject Ho at the 1% level

b.

Sources of

variation

Regressor

Error

Total

Sum of

Squares

79.2

45.9

125.1

Degress of

Freedom

3

21

24

Mean Squares

26.4

2.185714

F-Ratio

12.078

The test can be based directly on the coefficient of determination since

R2

SSR SST SSR

SSR

SSE

2

F , and

R

1

, and hence

2

1 R

SSE SST SSE

SST

SST

n K 1 R2

24 .51

F

F

6.2449 , F 4,24,.01 = 4.22. Therefore,

2 ,

K

4 1 .51

1 R

reject H 0 at the 1% level

13.43 a. H 0 : 1 2 3 0, H1 : At least one i 0, (i 1, 2,3)

R2

R2

SSR SST SSR

SSR

SSE

F , and

1

, and hence

2

1 R

SSE SST SSE

SST

SST

n K 1 R2

15 .84

F

F

26.25 , F 3,15,.01 = 5.42. Therefore, reject

2 ,

K

3 1 .84

1 R

H 0 at the 1% level

13.44 a. H 0 : 1 2 0, H1 : At least one i 0, (i 1, 2)

R2

F

R2

SSR SST SSR

SSR

SSE

F , and

1

, and hence

2

1 R

SSE SST SSE

SST

SST

n K 1 R2

16 .96 (2 /16)

F

217 , F 2,16,.01 = 6.23

2 ,

K

2

1 .96

1 R

36

i 0, (i 1, 2,3, 4,5, 6, 7)

31 .3572 (7 / 31)

F

4.017 , F 7,30,.01 = 3.30.

7

1 .3572

Therefore, reject H 0 at the 1% level

( SSE * SSE )k1 n k 1 ( SSE * SSE ) / SST

SSE /(n k 1)

k1

SSE / SST

13.46

=

13.47

n k 11 R 2* (1 R 2 )

n k 1 R 2 R 2*

=

k1

1 R2

k1

1 R2

(88.2 83.7) /1

H 0 : 3 0, H1 : 3 0 , F

1.398 , F 1,26,.05 = 4.23

83.7 / 26

Therefore, do not reject H 0 at the 5% level

13.47.1

SSE /( n k 1)

n 1

(1 R 2 ) =

= 1

SST /(n 1)

n k 1

n 1

k

(n 1) R 2 k

R2

=

n k 1

n k 1

n k 1

2

a. R 1

b. Since R 2

c.

(n 1) R 2 k

(n k 1) R 2 k

, then R 2

n k 1

n 1

SSR / k

n k 1 SSR / SST

n k 1 R2

=

=

SSE /(n k 1)

k

SSE / SST

k

1 R2

n k 1 [(n k 1) R 2 k ] /(n 1)

n k 1 (n k 1) R 2 k

=

k

[n 1 (n k 1) R 2 k ] /(n 1)

k

( n k 1)(1 R 2 )

n k 1 R 2 k

=

k

(1 R 2 )

a. y 6 5(10) 4(23) 7(9) 8(12) = 307

b. y 6 5(23) 4(18) 7(10) 8(11) = 351

c. y 6 5(10) 4(23) 7(9) 8(12) = 307

d. y 6 5(10) 4(13) 7( 8) 8(16) = -176

37

13.51 Y .578 .052(6) 1.14(4) 5.45 quarts of milk per week

13.52 Y 2.0 .661(1) .065(7) .018(50) 2.216 million worker hours

13.53 a. All else equal, a one square foot increase in the lot size is expected to increase

the selling price of the house by $1.468

b. 98.43% of the variation in the selling price of homes can be explained by the

variation in house size, lot size, number of bedrooms and number of bathrooms

2701.1

1.353 , t15,.10 /.05 = 1.341, 1.753

c. H 0 : 4 0, H1 : 4 0 , t

1996.2

Therefore, reject H 0 at the 10% level but not at the 5% level

d.

Y 1998.5 22.352(1250) 1.4686(4700) 6767.3(3) 2701.1(1.5) 61194.47

13.54

Xi

1

2

4

6

1.5

4

11.3137 32

58.7878

yi 4 x

13

41

85

yi 1 2 xi 2 xi 2 5

8

90.5097

10

126.4611

145

221

Xi

1

2

4

6

8

1.8

4

13.9288

48.5029 100.6311 168.8970

yi 4 x

13

41

85

145

yi 1 2 xi 2 xi 2 5

13.56 Compute values of yi when xi = 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10

Xi

1

2

4

6

1.5

4

11.3137 32

58.7878

yi 4 x

4.7

11.8

36.2

74.2

yi 1 2 xi 1.7 xi 2

13.57 Compute values of yi when xi = 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10

Xi

1

2

4

6

1.2

3

6.8922 15.8341 25.7574

yi 3x

15

-3

-23

yi 1 5 xi 1.5 xi 2 4.5

10

252.3829

221

8

90.5097

10

126.4611

125.8

191

8

36.3772

10

47.5468

-55

-99

13.58 There are many possible answers. Relationships that can be approximated by a

non-linear quadratic model include many supply functions, production functions

and cost functions including average cost versus the number of units produced.

38

To estimate the function with linear least squares, solve the equation 1 2 2

for 2 . Since 2 2 1 , plug into the equation and algebraically manipulate:

Y o 1 X 1 (2 1 ) X 21 3 X 2

13.59

Y o 1 X 1 2 X 21 1 X 21 3 X 2

Y o 1[ X 1 X 21 ] 2 X 21 3 X 2

Y 2 X 21 o 1[ X 1 X 21 ] 3 X 2

Conduct the variable transformations and estimate the model using least squares.

13.60

associated with a 1.1556% increase in expenditures on vacation travel.

All else equal, a 1% increase in the size of the household will be associated

with a .4408% decrease in expenditures on vacation travel.

b. 16.8% of the variation in vacation travel expenditures can be explained by the

variations in the log of total consumption expenditures and log of the number

of members in the household

c. 1.1556 1.96(.0546) = 1.049 up to 1.2626

.4408

8.996 ,

d. H 0 : 2 0, H1 : 2 0 , t

.0490

Therefore, reject H 0 at the 1% level

13.61

size.

.68

8.831 , Therefore, reject H 0 at the 1% level

b. H 0 : 1 0, H1 : 1 0 , t

.077

13.62

a. All else equal, a 1% increase in the price of beef will be associated with a

decrease of .529% in the tons of beef consumed annually in the U.S.

b. All else equal, a 1% increase in the price of pork will be associated with an

increase of .217% in the tons of beef consumed annually in the U.S.

.416

2.552 , t25,.01 = 2.485, Therefore, reject

c. H 0 : 4 0, H1 : 4 0 , t

.163

H 0 at the 1% level

d. H 0 : 1 2 3 4 0, H1 : At least one i 0, (i 1, 2,3, 4)

n k 1 R2

25 .683

2

k

1 R

4 1 .683

reject H 0 at the 1% level

e. If an important independent variable has been omitted, there may be

specification bias. The regression coefficients produced for the misspecified

model would be misleading.

F

39

log(Y ) log( 0 ) 1 log( X 1 ) 2 log( X 2 ) 3 log( X 3 )

Using this form, now regression the log of Y on the logs of the three independent

variables and obtain the estimated regression slope coefficients.

12.34

logarithm of both sides of the multiple regression model to obtain an equation

that is linear in the logarithms of the variables.

log(Y ) log( 0 ) 1 log( X 1 ) 2 log( X 2 ) 3 log( X 3 ) 4 (log( X 4 ) log( )

Substituting in the restrictions on the coefficients: 1 2 1, 2 1 1 ,

3 4 1, 4 1 3

log(Y ) log( 0 ) 1 log( X 1 ) [1 1 ]log( X 2 ) 3 log( X 3 ) [1 3 ](log( X 4 ) log( )

Simplify algebraically and estimate the coefficients. The coefficient 2 can be

found by subtracting 1 from 1.0. Likewise the coefficient 4 can be found by

subtracting 3 from 1.0.

b. Constant elasticity for Y versus X4 is the regression slope coefficient on the X4

term of the logarithm model.

Linear model:

Regression Plot

Salary = 20544.5 + 616.113 Experience

S = 3117.89

R-Sq = 78.0 %

R-Sq(adj) = 77.9 %

50000

40000

Salary

13.64

30000

20000

0

10

20

Experience

30

40

Quadratic model:

Regression Plot

Salary = 18683.8 + 910.807 Experience

- 8.21382 Experience**2

S = 3027.17

R-Sq = 79.4 %

R-Sq(adj) = 79.1 %

50000

Salary

40000

30000

20000

0

10

20

Experience

30

40

40

41

Cubic model:

Regression Plot

Salary = 20881.1 + 344.484 Experience

+ 26.4323 Experience**2 - 0.582553 Experience**3

S = 2982.43

R-Sq = 80.2 %

R-Sq(adj) = 79.8 %

50000

Salary

40000

30000

20000

0

10

20

30

40

Experience

All three of the models appear to fit the data well. The cubic model appears to fit

the data the best as the standard error of the estimate is lowest. In addition,

explanatory power is marginally higher for the cubic model than the other models.

13.66

Results for: GermanImports.xls

Regression Analysis: LogYt versus LogX1t, LogX2t

The regression equation is

LogYt = - 4.07 + 1.36 LogX1t + 0.101 LogX2t

Predictor

Coef

SE Coef

T

Constant

-4.0709

0.3100

-13.13

LogX1t

1.35935

0.03005

45.23

LogX2t

0.10094

0.05715

1.77

S = 0.04758

R-Sq = 99.7%

Analysis of Variance

Source

DF

Regression

2

Residual Error

28

Total

30

Source

LogX1t

LogX2t

DF

1

1

SS

21.345

0.063

21.409

P

0.000

0.000

0.088

VIF

4.9

4.9

R-Sq(adj) = 99.7%

MS

10.673

0.002

F

4715.32

Seq SS

21.338

0.007

13.67 What is the model constant when the dummy variable equals 1

a. y 7 8 x1 , b0 = 7

b. y 12 6 x1 , b0 = 12

c. y 7 12 x1 , b0 = 7

P

0.000

42

13.68 What is the model constant when the dummy variable equals 1

a. y 5.78 4.87 x1

b. y 1.15 9.51x1

c. y 13.67 8.98 x1

13.69 The interpretation of the dummy variable is that we can conclude that for a given

difference between the spot price in the current year and OPEC price in the

previous year, the difference between the OPEC price in the current year and

OPEC price in the previous years is $5.22 higher in 1974 during the oil embargo

than in other years

13.70

a. All else being equal, expected selling price is higher by $3,219 if condo has a

fireplace.

b. All else being equal, expected selling price is higher by $2,005 if condo has

brick siding.

c. 95% CI: 3219 1.96(947) = $1,362.88 up to $5,075.12

2005

2.611 , t809,.005 = 2.576

d. H 0 : 5 0, H1 : 5 0 , t

768

Therefore, reject H 0 at the .5% level

13.71

a. All else being equal, the price-earnings ratio is higher by 1.23 for a regional

company than a national company

1.23

2.48 , t29,.01/.005 = 2.462, 2.756

b. H 0 : 2 0, H1 : 2 0 , t

.496

Therefore, reject H 0 at the 2% level but not at the 1% level

c. H 0 : 1 2 0, H1 : At least one i 0, (i 1, 2)

n k 1 R2

29 .37

2

k

1 R

2 1 .37

Therefore, reject H 0 at the 5% level

F

13.72 35.6% of the variation in overall performance in law school can be explained by

the variation in undergraduate gpa, scores on the LSATs and whether the students

letter of recommendation are unusually strong. The overall model is significant

since we can reject the null hypothesis that the model has no explanatory power in

favor of the alternative hypothesis that the model has significant explanatory

power. The individual regression coefficients that are significantly different than

zero include the scores on the LSAT and whether the students letters of

recommendation were unusually strong. The coefficient on undergraduate gpa was

not found to be significant at the 5% level.

13.73

a. All else equal, the annual salary of the attorney general who can be removed is

$5,793 higher than if the attorney general cannot be removed

43

b. All else equal, the annual salary of the attorney general of the state is $3,100

lower if the supreme court justices are elected on partisan ballots

5793

1.9996 , t43,.05 /.025 = 1.68, 2.016

c. H 0 : 5 0, H1 : 5 0 , t

2897

Therefore, reject H 0 at the 5% level but not at the 2.5% level

3100

1.76 , t43,.05 /.025 = -1.68, -20.16

d. H 0 : 6 0, H1 : 6 0 , t

1761

Therefore, reject H 0 at the 5% level but not at the 2.5% level

e. t43,.05/.025 = 2.016

95% CI: 547 2.016(124.3), 296.41 up to 797.59

13.74

a. All else equal, the average rating of a course is 6.21 units higher if a

visiting

lecturer is brought in than if otherwise.

6.21

1.73 , t20,.05 = 1.725

b. H 0 : 4 0, H1 : 4 0 , t

3.59

Therefore, reject H 0 at the 5% level

c. 56.9% of the variation in the average course rating can be explained by the

variation in the percentage of time spent in group discussions, the dollars spent

on preparing the course materials, the dollars spent on food and drinks, and

whether a guest lecturer is brought in.

H 0 : 1 2 3 4 0, H1 : At least one i 0, (i 1, 2,3, 4)

n k 1 R2

20 .569

6.6

2

k

1 R

4 1 .569

F 4,20,.01 = 4.43

Therefore, reject H 0 at the 1% level

d. t20,.025 = 2.086

95% CI: .52 2.086(.21), .0819 up to .9581

13.75 34.4% of the variation in a test on understanding college economics can be

explained by which course was taken, the students gpa, the teacher that taught the

course, the gender of the student, the pre-test score, the number of credit hours

completed and the age of the student. The regression model has significant

explanatory power:

H 0 : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0, H1 : At least one

i 0, (i 1, 2,3, 4,5, 6, 7)

F

n k 1 R2

342 .344

25.62

2

k

1 R

7 1 .344

44

13.76

Results for: Student Performance.xls

Regression Analysis: Y versus X1, X2, X3, X4, X5

The regression equation is

Y = 2.00 + 0.0099 X1 + 0.0763 X2 - 0.137 X3 + 0.064 X4 + 0.138 X5

Predictor

Constant

X1

X2

X3

X4

X5

Coef

1.997

0.00990

0.07629

-0.13652

0.0636

0.13794

S = 0.5416

SE Coef

1.273

0.01654

0.05654

0.06922

0.2606

0.07521

R-Sq = 26.5%

Analysis of Variance

Source

DF

Regression

5

Residual Error

21

Total

26

T

1.57

0.60

1.35

-1.97

0.24

1.83

P

0.132

0.556

0.192

0.062

0.810

0.081

VIF

1.3

1.2

1.1

1.4

1.1

R-Sq(adj) = 9.0%

SS

2.2165

6.1598

8.3763

MS

0.4433

0.2933

F

1.51

P

0.229

The model is not significant (p-value of the F-test = .229). The model only explains

26.5% of the variation in gpa with the hours spent studying, hours spent preparing

for tests, hours spent in bars, whether or not students take notes or mark highlights

when reading tests and the average number of credit hours taken per semester. The

only independent variables that are marginally significant (10% level but not the 5%

level) include number of hours spent in bars and average number of credit hours.

The other independent variables are not significant at common levels of alpha.

13.77

a. Begin the analysis with the correlation matrix identify important independent

variables as well as correlations between the independent variables

Correlations: Salary, Experience, yearsenior, Gender_1F

Experien

yearseni

0.883

0.000

0.777

0.000

0.674

0.000

Gender_1 -0.429

0.000

-0.378

0.000

-0.292

0.000

The regression equation is

Salary = 22644 + 437 Experience + 415 yearsenior - 1443 Gender_1F

Predictor

Coef

SE Coef

T

P

VIF

Constant

22644.1

521.8

43.40

0.000

Experien

437.10

31.41

13.92

0.000

2.0

yearseni

414.71

55.31

7.50

0.000

1.8

Gender_1

-1443.2

519.8

-2.78

0.006

1.2

S = 2603

R-Sq = 84.9%

Analysis of Variance

Source

DF

Regression

3

Residual Error

146

SS

5559163505

989063178

R-Sq(adj) = 84.6%

MS

1853054502

6774405

F

273.54

P

0.000

45

Total

149

6548226683

84.9% of the variation in annual salary (in dollars) can be explained by the variation

in the years of experience, the years of seniority and the gender of the employee. All

of the variables are significant at the .01 level of significance (p-values of .000, .000

and .006 respectively). The F-test of the significance of the overall model shows

that we reject H 0 that all of the slope coefficients are jointly equal to zero in favor

of H1 that at least one slope coefficient is not equal to zero. The F-test yielded a pvalue of .000.

b. H 0 : 3 0, H1 : 3 0

1443.2

t

2.78 , t146,.01 = -2.326

519.8

Therefore, reject H 0 at the 1% level. And conclude that the annual salaries for

females are statistically significantly lower than they are for males.

c. Add an interaction term and test for the significance of the slope coefficient on

the interaction term.

13.78 Two variables are included as predictor variables. What is the effect on the

estimated slope coefficients when these two variables have a correlation equal to

a. .78. A large correlation among the independent variables will lead to a high

variance for the estimated slope coefficients and will tend to have a small

2

students t statistic. Use the rule of thumb r

to determine if the

n

correlation is large.

b. .08. No correlation exists among the independent variables. No effect on the

estimated slope coefficients.

c. .94. A large correlation among the independent variables will lead to a high

variance for the estimated slope coefficients and will tend to have a small

students t statistic.

2

d. .33. Use the rule of thumb r

to determine if the correlation is large.

n

13.79 n = 34 and four independent variables. R = .23. Does this imply that this

independent variable will have a very small students t statistic?

Correlation between the independent variable and the dependent variable is not

necessarily evidence of a small students t statistic. A high correlation among the

independent variables could result in a very small students t statistic as the

correlation creates a high variance.

46

13.80 n = 47 with three independent variables. One of the independent variables has a

correlation of .95 with the dependent variable.

Correlation between the independent variable and the dependent variable is not

necessarily evidence of a small students t statistic. A high correlation among the

independent variables could result in a very small students t statistic as the

correlation creates a high variance.

13.81 n = 49 with two independent variables. One of the independent variables has a

correlation of .56 with the dependent variable.

Correlation between the independent variable and the dependent variable is not

necessarily evidence of a small students t statistic. A high correlation among the

independent variables could result in a very small students t statistic as the

correlation creates a high variance.

13.82 Through 13.84 Reports can be written by following the extended Case Study on

the data file Cotton see Section 13.9

13.85

Regression Analysis: y_deathrate versus x1_totmiles, x2_avgspeed

The regression equation is

y_deathrate = - 2.97 - 0.00447 x1_totmiles + 0.219 x2_avgspeed

Predictor

Coef

SE Coef

T

P

VIF

Constant

-2.969

3.437

-0.86

0.416

x1_totmi

-0.004470

0.001549

-2.89

0.023

11.7

x2_avgsp

0.21879

0.08391

2.61

0.035

11.7

S = 0.1756

R-Sq = 55.1%

R-Sq(adj) = 42.3%

Analysis of Variance

Source

DF

SS

MS

F

Regression

2

0.26507

0.13254

4.30

Residual Error

7

0.21593

0.03085

Total

9

0.48100

P

0.061

55.1% of the variation in death rates can be explained by the variation in total

miles traveled and in average travel speed. The overall model is significant at the

10% but not the 5% level since the p-value of the F-test is .061.

All else equal, the average speed variable has the expected sign since as average

speed increases, the death rate also increases. The total miles traveled variable is

negative which indicates that the more miles traveled, the lower the death rate.

Both of the independent variables are significant at the 5% level (p-values of .023

and .035 respectively). There appears to be some correlation between the

independent variables.

47

model using a quadratic model is as follows:

Regression Analysis: y_deathrate versus x1_totmiles, x1_totsquared

The regression equation is

y_deathrate = - 6.54 + 0.0268 x1_totmiles -0.000015 x1_totsquared

Predictor

Coef

Constant

-6.539

x1_totmi

0.026800

x1_totsq -0.00001480

SE Coef

1.296

0.002835

0.00000153

T

-5.04

9.45

-9.68

P

0.001

0.000

0.000

VIF

285.5

285.5

S = 0.06499

R-Sq = 93.9%

R-Sq(adj) = 92.1%

Analysis of Variance

Source

DF

SS

MS

F

Regression

2

0.45143

0.22572

53.44

Residual Error

7

0.02957

0.00422

Total

9

0.48100

Source

x1_totmi

x1_totsq

DF

1

1

P

0.000

Seq SS

0.05534

0.39609

13.86

Regression Analysis: y_FemaleLFPR versus x1_income, x2_yrsedu, ...

The regression equation is

y_FemaleLFPR = 0.2 +0.000406 x1_income + 4.84 x2_yrsedu - 1.55

x3_femaleun

Predictor

Coef

SE Coef

T

P

VIF

Constant

0.16

34.91

0.00

0.996

x1_incom

0.0004060

0.0001736

2.34

0.024

1.2

x2_yrsed

4.842

2.813

1.72

0.092

1.5

x3_femal

-1.5543

0.3399

-4.57

0.000

1.3

S = 3.048

R-Sq = 54.3%

Analysis of Variance

Source

DF

Regression

3

Residual Error

46

Total

49

SS

508.35

427.22

935.57

R-Sq(adj) = 51.4%

MS

169.45

9.29

F

18.24

P

0.000

13.87

Regression Analysis: y_money versus x1_pcincome, x2_ir

The regression equation is

y_money = - 1158 + 0.253 x1_pcincome - 19.6 x2_ir

Predictor

Coef

SE Coef

T

P

Constant

-1158.4

587.9

-1.97

0.080

x1_pcinc

0.25273

0.03453

7.32

0.000

x2_ir

-19.56

21.73

-0.90

0.391

S = 84.93

R-Sq = 89.8%

R-Sq(adj) = 87.5%

Analysis of Variance

Source

DF

SS

MS

F

Regression

2

570857

285429

39.57

Residual Error

9

64914

7213

Total

11

635771

Source

x1_pcinc

x2_ir

DF

1

1

Seq SS

565012

5845

VIF

1.3

1.3

P

0.000

48

13.88

Regression Analysis: y_manufgrowt versus x1_aggrowth, x2_exportgro, ...

The regression equation is

y_manufgrowth = 2.15 + 0.493 x1_aggrowth + 0.270 x2_exportgrowth

- 0.117 x3_inflation

Predictor

Coef

SE Coef

T

P

VIF

Constant

2.1505

0.9695

2.22

0.032

x1_aggro

0.4934

0.2020

2.44

0.019

1.0

x2_expor

0.26991

0.06494

4.16

0.000

1.0

x3_infla

-0.11709

0.05204

-2.25

0.030

1.0

S = 3.624

R-Sq = 39.3%

R-Sq(adj) = 35.1%

Analysis of Variance

Source

DF

SS

MS

F

Regression

3

373.98

124.66

9.49

Residual Error

44

577.97

13.14

Total

47

951.95

Source

x1_aggro

x2_expor

x3_infla

DF

1

1

1

P

0.000

Seq SS

80.47

227.02

66.50

13.89

The method of least squares regression yields estimators that are BLUE Best

Linear Unbiased Estimators. This result holds when the assumptions regarding the

behavior of the error term are true. BLUE estimators are the most efficient (best)

estimators out of the class of all unbiased estimators. The advent of computing

power incorporating the method of least squares has dramatically increased its use.

13.90 The analysis of variance table identifies how the total variability of the dependent

variable (SST) is split up between the portion of variability that is explained by the

regression model (SSR) and the part that is unexplained (SSE). The Coefficient of

Determination (R2) is derived as the ratio of SSR to SST. The analysis of variance

table also computes the F statistic for the test of the significance of the overall

regression whether all of the slope coefficients are jointly equal to zero. The

associated p-value is also generally reported in this table.

13.91

a. False. If the regression model does not explain a large enough portion of the

variability of the dependent variable, then the error sum of squares can be larger

than the regression sum of squares

b. False the sum of several simple linear regressions will not equal a multiple

regression since the assumption of all else equal will be violated in the simple

linear regressions. The multiple regression holds all else equal in calculating the

partial effect that a change in one of the independent variables has on the

dependent variable.

c. True

d. False While the regular coefficient of determination (R2) cannot be negative,

the adjusted coefficient of determination R 2 can become negative. If the

independent variables added into a regression equation have very little

explanatory power, the loss of degrees of freedom may more than offset the

added explanatory power.

49

e. True

13.92 If one model contains more explanatory variables, then SST remains the same for

both models but SSR will be higher for the model with more explanatory variables.

Since SST = SSR1 + SSE1 which is equivalent to SSR2 + SSE2 and given that SSR2 >

SSR1, then SSE1 > SSE2. Hence, the coefficient of determination will be higher with

a greater number of explanatory variables and the coefficient of determination must

be interpreted in conjunction with whether or not the regression slope coefficients on

the explanatory variables are significantly different from zero.

13.93

correlation between the independent variables. The overall model can be shown to

have significant explanatory power and yet none of the slope coefficients on the

independent variables are significantly different from zero. This is due to the effect

that high correlation among the independent variables has on the variance of the

estimated slope coefficient.

13.94

e (y a b x b x

e (y y b x b x

e ny ny nb x nb x

e 0

1 1i

2 2i

1 1i

2 2i

b1 x1i b2 x2i )

2 2

nb1 x1 nb2 x2

1 1

13.95

economic quality, measure of political quality, measure of environmental quality,

measure of health and educational quality, and social life results in a respective

4.983, 2.198, 3.816, -.310, -.886, 3.215, and .085 increase in the new business

starts in the industry.

2

b. R .766 . 76.6% of the variability in new business starts in the industry can be

explained by the variability in the independent variables; population, industry

size, economic, political environmental, health and educational quality of life.

c. t 62,.05 = 1.67, therefore, the 90% CI: 3.816 1.67(2.063) = .3708 up to 7.2612

.886

.29 , t62,.025 = 2.000

d. H 0 : 5 0, H1 : 5 0 , t

3.055

Therefore, do not reject H 0 at the 5% level

3.125

2.05 , t62,.025 = 2.000

e. H 0 : 6 0, H1 : 6 0 , t

1.568

Therefore, reject H 0 at the 5% level

f. H 0 : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0, H1 : At least one

i 0, (i 1, 2,3, 4,5, 6, 7)

n k 1 R2

62 .766

28.99

2

k

1 R

2 1 .766

F 7,62,.01 = 2.79, Therefore, reject H 0 at the 1% level

F

13.96

50

expected percentage of responses received. All else equal, an increase in one

word in length of the questionnaire results in a decrease of .016 in expected

percentage of responses received.

b. 63.7% of the variability in the percentage of responses received can be explained

by the variability in the number of questions asked and the number of words

c. H 0 : 1 2 0, H1 : At least one i 0, (i 1, 2)

n k 1 R2

27 .637

23.69

2

k

1 R

2 1 .637

F 2,27,.01 = 5.49, Therefore, reject H 0 at the 1% level

d. t27,.005 = 2.771, 99% CI: -1.8345 2.771(.6349). 3.5938 up to -.0752

e. t = -1.78, t27,.05/.025 = -1.703, -2.052.

F

13.97

a. All else equal, a 1% increase in course time spent in group discussion results

in an expected increase of .3817 in the average rating of the course. All else

equal, a dollar increase in money spent on the preparation of subject matter

materials results in an expected increase of .5172 in the average rating by

participants of the course. All else equal, a unit increase in expenditure on noncourse related materials results in an expected increase of .0753 in the average

rating of the course.

b. 57.9% of the variation in the average rating can be explained by the linear

relationship with % of class time spent on discussion, money spent on the

preparation of subject matter materials and money spent on non-class related

materials.

c. H 0 : 1 2 3 0, H1 : At least one i 0, (i 1, 2,3)

n k 1 R2

21 .579

9.627

2

k

1 R

3 1 .579

F 2,21,.05 = 3.47

Therefore, reject H 0 at the 5% level

d. t21,.05 = 1.721, 90% CI: .3817 1.721(.2018) .0344 up to .729

e. t = 2.64, t21,.01/.005 = 2.518, 2.831

F

f. t = 1.09, t21,.05 = 1.721. Therefore, do not reject H 0 at the 10% level

51

13.98

Regression Analysis: y_rating versus x1_expgrade, x2_Numstudents

The regression equation is

y_rating = - 0.200 + 1.41 x1_expgrade - 0.0158 x2_Numstudents

Predictor

Coef

SE Coef

T

P

VIF

Constant

-0.2001

0.6968

-0.29

0.777

x1_expgr

1.4117

0.1780

7.93

0.000

1.5

x2_Numst

-0.015791

0.003783

-4.17

0.001

1.5

S = 0.1866

R-Sq = 91.5%

R-Sq(adj) = 90.5%

Analysis of Variance

Source

DF

SS

MS

F

Regression

2

6.3375

3.1687

90.99

Residual Error

17

0.5920

0.0348

Total

19

6.9295

13.99

n k 1 R2

55 .467 .242

5.804 , F

2

k

1 R

4 1 .467

Therefore, reject H 0 at the 1% level

F

13.100

P

0.000

4,55,.01

= 3.68

a. All else equal, each extra point in the students expected score leads to an

expected increase of .469 in the actual score

b. t 103,.025 = 1.98, therefore, the 95% CI: 3.369 1.98(.456) = 2.4661 up to

4.2719

3.054

2.096 , t103,.025 = 1.96

c. H 0 : 3 0, H1 : 3 0 , t

1.457

Therefore, reject H 0 at the 5% level

d. 68.6% of the variation in the exam scores is explained by their linear

dependence on the students expected score, hours per week spent working on

the course and the students grade point average

H

e. 0 : 1 2 3 0, H1 : At least one i 0, (i 1, 2,3)

n k 1 R2

103 .686

2

k

1 R

3 1 .686

Reject H 0 at any common levels of alpha

F

f. R .686 .82825

g. Y 2.178 .469(80) 3.369(8) 3.054(3) 75.812

13.101 a. t 22,.01 = 2.819, therefore, the 99% CI: .0974 2.819(0.0215)

= .0368 up to .1580

.374

1.789 , t22,.05 /.025 = 1.717, 2.074.

b. H 0 : 2 0, H1 : 2 0 , t

.209

Therefore, reject H 0 at the 5% level but not the 2.5% level

22(.91) 2

.9175

c. R 2

24

52

d. H 0 : 1 2 0, H1 : At least one i 0, (i 1, 2)

n k 1 R2

22 .9175

2

k

1 R

2 1 .9175

Reject H 0 at any common levels of alpha

F

e. R .9175 .9579

13.102 a. t 2669,.05 = 1.645, therefore, the 90% CI: 480.04 1.645(224.9) = 110.0795 up

to 850.0005

b. t 2669,.005 = 2.576, therefore, the 99% CI: 1350.3 2.576(212.3) = 803.4152 up

to 1897.1848

891.67

4.9299

c. H 0 : 8 0, H1 : 8 0 , t

180.87

t2669,.005 = 2.576, therefore, reject H 0 at the .5% level

722.95

6.5142

d. H 0 : 9 0, H1 : 9 0 , t

110.98

t2669,.005 = 2.576, therefore, reject H 0 at the .5% level

e. 52.39% of the variability in minutes played in the season can be explained by

the variability in all 9 variables.

f. R .5239 .7238

13.103 a. H 0 : 1 0, H1 : 1 0

.052

t

2.737 , t60,.005 = 2.66, therefore, reject H 0 at the 1% level

.019

.005

.119

b. H 0 : 2 0, H1 : 2 0 , t

.042

t60,.10 = 1.296, therefore, do not reject H 0 at the 20% level

c. 17% of the variation in the growth rate in GDP can be explained by the

variations in real income per capita and the average tax rate, as a proportion of

GNP.

d. R .17 .4123

13.104 A report can be written by following the Case Study and testing the significance

of the model. See section 13.9

53

Correlations: EconGPA, SATverb, SATmath, HSPct

EconGPA

0.478

0.000

SATverb

SATmath

0.427

0.000

0.353

0.003

HSPct

0.362

0.000

0.201

0.121

SATverb

SATmath

0.497

0.000

The regression equation is

EconGPA = 0.612 + 0.0239 SATverb + 0.0117 SATmath + 0.00530

61 cases used 51 cases contain missing values

Predictor

Coef

SE Coef

T

P

Constant

0.6117

0.4713

1.30

0.200

SATverb

0.023929

0.007386

3.24

0.002

SATmath

0.011722

0.007887

1.49

0.143

HSPct

0.005303

0.004213

1.26

0.213

S = 0.4238

R-Sq = 32.9%

R-Sq(adj) = 29.4%

Analysis of Variance

Source

DF

SS

MS

F

Regression

3

5.0171

1.6724

9.31

Residual Error

57

10.2385

0.1796

Total

60

15.2556

Source

SATverb

SATmath

HSPct

DF

1

1

1

HSPct

VIF

1.2

1.5

1.3

P

0.000

Seq SS

3.7516

0.9809

0.2846

The regression model indicates positive coefficients, as expected, for all three

independent variables. The greater the high school rank, and the higher the SAT

verbal and SAT math scores, the larger the Econ GPA. The high school rank

variable has the smallest t-statistic and is removed from the model:

Regression Analysis: EconGPA versus SATverb, SATmath

The regression equation is

EconGPA = 0.755 + 0.0230 SATverb + 0.0174 SATmath

67 cases used 45 cases contain missing values

Predictor

Coef

SE Coef

T

P

Constant

0.7547

0.4375

1.72

0.089

SATverb

0.022951

0.006832

3.36

0.001

SATmath

0.017387

0.006558

2.65

0.010

S = 0.4196

R-Sq = 30.5%

R-Sq(adj) = 28.3%

Analysis of Variance

Source

DF

SS

MS

F

Regression

2

4.9488

2.4744

14.05

Residual Error

64

11.2693

0.1761

Total

66

16.2181

Source

SATverb

SATmath

DF

1

1

Seq SS

3.7109

1.2379

VIF

1.1

1.1

P

0.000

54

Both SAT variables are now statistically significant at the .05 level and appear to

pick up separate influences on the dependent variable. The simple correlation

coefficient between SAT math and SAT verbal is relatively low at .353. Thus,

multicollinearity will not be dominant in this regression model.

The final regression model, with conditional t-statistics in parentheses under the

coefficients, is:

Y .755 .023( SATverbal ) .0174( SATmath)

(3.36)

(2.65)

S = .4196 R2 = .305 n = 67

b. Start with the correlation matrix:

Correlations: EconGPA, Acteng, ACTmath, ACTss, ACTcomp, HSPct

EconGPA

0.387

0.001

Acteng

ACTmath

0.338

0.003

0.368

0.001

ACTss

0.442

0.000

0.448

0.000

0.439

0.000

ACTcomp

0.474

0.000

0.650

0.000

0.765

0.000

0.812

0.000

HSPct

0.362

0.000

0.173

0.150

0.290

0.014

0.224

0.060

Acteng

ACTmath

ACTss

ACTcomp

0.230

0.053

The regression equation is

EconGPA = - 0.207 + 0.0266 Acteng - 0.0023 ACTmath + 0.0212 ACTss

+ 0.0384 ACTcomp + 0.0128 HSPct

71 cases used 41 cases contain missing values

Predictor

Coef

SE Coef

T

P

VIF

Constant

-0.2069

0.6564

-0.32

0.754

Acteng

0.02663

0.02838

0.94

0.352

2.2

ACTmath

-0.00229

0.03031

-0.08

0.940

4.2

ACTss

0.02118

0.02806

0.75

0.453

4.6

ACTcomp

0.03843

0.07287

0.53

0.600

12.7

HSPct

0.012817

0.005271

2.43

0.018

1.2

S = 0.5034

R-Sq = 31.4%

R-Sq(adj) = 26.1%

Analysis of Variance

Source

DF

SS

MS

F

Regression

5

7.5253

1.5051

5.94

Residual Error

65

16.4691

0.2534

Total

70

23.9945

Source

Acteng

ACTmath

ACTss

ACTcomp

HSPct

DF

1

1

1

1

1

Seq SS

3.5362

1.0529

1.4379

0.0001

1.4983

P

0.000

55

The regression shows that only high school rank is significant at the .05 level. We

may suspect multicollinearity between the variables, particularly since there is a

total ACT score (ACT composite) as well as the components that make up the

ACT composite. Since conditional significance is dependent on which other

independent variables are included in the regression equation, drop one variable at

a time. ACTmath has the lowest t-statistic and is removed:

Regression Analysis: EconGPA versus Acteng, ACTss, ACTcomp,

HSPct

The regression equation is

EconGPA = - 0.195 + 0.0276 Acteng + 0.0224 ACTss + 0.0339 ACTcomp

+ 0.0127 HSPct

71 cases used 41 cases contain missing values

Predictor

Coef

SE Coef

T

P

VIF

Constant

-0.1946

0.6313

-0.31

0.759

Acteng

0.02756

0.02534

1.09

0.281

1.8

ACTss

0.02242

0.02255

0.99

0.324

3.0

ACTcomp

0.03391

0.04133

0.82

0.415

4.2

HSPct

0.012702

0.005009

2.54

0.014

1.1

S = 0.4996

R-Sq = 31.4%

R-Sq(adj) = 27.2%

Analysis of Variance

Source

DF

SS

MS

F

Regression

4

7.5239

1.8810

7.54

Residual Error

66

16.4706

0.2496

Total

70

23.9945

Source

Acteng

ACTss

ACTcomp

HSPct

DF

1

1

1

1

P

0.000

Seq SS

3.5362

2.1618

0.2211

1.6048

Again, high school rank is the only conditionally significant variable. ACTcomp

has the lowest t-statistic and is removed:

Regression Analysis: EconGPA versus Acteng, ACTss, HSPct

The regression equation is

EconGPA = 0.049 + 0.0390 Acteng + 0.0364 ACTss + 0.0129 HSPct

71 cases used 41 cases contain missing values

Predictor

Coef

SE Coef

T

P

VIF

Constant

0.0487

0.5560

0.09

0.930

Acteng

0.03897

0.02114

1.84

0.070

1.3

ACTss

0.03643

0.01470

2.48

0.016

1.3

HSPct

0.012896

0.004991

2.58

0.012

1.1

S = 0.4983

R-Sq = 30.7%

R-Sq(adj) = 27.6%

Analysis of Variance

Source

DF

SS

MS

F

Regression

3

7.3558

2.4519

9.87

Residual Error

67

16.6386

0.2483

Total

70

23.9945

Source

Acteng

ACTss

HSPct

DF

1

1

1

Seq SS

3.5362

2.1618

1.6579

P

0.000

56

Now ACTss and high school rank are conditionally significant. ACTenglish has a tstatistic less than 2 and is removed:

57

The regression equation is

EconGPA = 0.566 + 0.0479 ACTss + 0.0137 HSPct

71 cases used 41 cases contain missing values

Predictor

Coef

SE Coef

T

Constant

0.5665

0.4882

1.16

ACTss

0.04790

0.01355

3.53

HSPct

0.013665

0.005061

2.70

P

0.250

0.001

0.009

S = 0.5070

R-Sq = 27.1%

R-Sq(adj) = 25.0%

Analysis of Variance

Source

DF

SS

MS

F

Regression

2

6.5123

3.2562

12.67

Residual Error

68

17.4821

0.2571

Total

70

23.9945

Source

ACTss

HSPct

DF

1

1

VIF

1.1

1.1

P

0.000

Seq SS

4.6377

1.8746

Both of the independent variables are statistically significant at the .05 level and

hence, the final regression model, with conditional t-statistics in parentheses under

the coefficients, is:

Y .567 .0479( ACTss) .0137( HSPct )

(3.53)

(2.70)

2

S = .5070 R = .271 n = 71

c. The regression model with the SAT variables is the better predictor

because the standard error of the estimate is smaller than for the ACT model

(.4196 vs. .5070). The R2 measure cannot be directly compared due to the sample

size differences.

13.106

Correlations: Salary, age, Experien, yrs_asoc, yrs_full, Sex_1Fem, Market,

C8

age

Salary

0.749

0.000

Experien

0.883

0.000

0.877

0.000

yrs_asoc

0.698

0.000

0.712

0.000

0.803

0.000

yrs_full

0.777

0.000

0.583

0.000

0.674

0.000

0.312

0.000

Sex_1Fem -0.429

0.000

-0.234

0.004

-0.378

0.000

-0.367

0.000

-0.292

0.000

Market

0.026

0.750

-0.134

0.103

-0.150

0.067

-0.113

0.169

-0.017

0.833

0.062

0.453

-0.029

0.721

-0.189

0.020

-0.117

0.155

-0.073

0.373

-0.043

0.598

-0.094

0.254

C8

Market

-0.107

0.192

58

The correlation matrix indicates that several of the independent variables are likely

to be significant, however, multicollinearity is also a likely result. The regression

model with all independent variables is:

Regression Analysis: Salary versus age, Experien, ...

The regression equation is

Salary = 23725 - 40.3 age + 357 Experien + 263 yrs_asoc + 493

yrs_full

- 954 Sex_1Fem + 3427 Market + 1188 C8

Predictor

Coef

SE Coef

T

P

VIF

Constant

23725

1524

15.57

0.000

age

-40.29

44.98

-0.90

0.372

4.7

Experien

356.83

63.48

5.62

0.000

10.0

yrs_asoc

262.50

75.11

3.49

0.001

4.0

yrs_full

492.91

59.27

8.32

0.000

2.6

Sex_1Fem

-954.1

487.3

-1.96

0.052

1.3

Market

3427.2

754.1

4.54

0.000

1.1

C8

1188.4

597.5

1.99

0.049

1.1

S = 2332

R-Sq = 88.2%

R-Sq(adj) = 87.6%

Analysis of Variance

Source

DF

SS

MS

F

Regression

7 5776063882

825151983

151.74

Residual Error

142

772162801

5437766

Total

149 6548226683

Source

age

Experien

yrs_asoc

yrs_full

Sex_1Fem

Market

DF

1

1

1

1

1

1

P

0.000

Seq SS

3669210599

1459475287

1979334

500316356

22707368

100860164

Since age is insignificant and has the smallest t-statistics, it is removed from the

model:

The conditional F test for age is:

SSRF SSRR 5, 766, 064, 000 5, 771, 700, 736

FX 2

.80

s 2Y | X

(2332) 2

Which is well below any common critical value of F. Thus, age is removed from

the model. The remaining independent variables are all significant at the .05 level

of significance and hence, become the final regression model. Residual analysis to

determine if the assumption of linearity holds true follows:

The regression equation is

Salary = 22455 + 324 Experien + 258 yrs_asoc + 491 yrs_full

Sex_1Fem

+ 3449 Market + 1274 C8

Predictor

Coef

SE Coef

T

P

Constant

22455.2

557.7

40.26

0.000

Experien

324.24

51.99

6.24

0.000

yrs_asoc

257.88

74.88

3.44

0.001

yrs_full

490.97

59.19

8.29

0.000

Sex_1Fem

-1043.4

476.7

-2.19

0.030

Market

3449.4

753.2

4.58

0.000

C8

1274.5

589.3

2.16

0.032

S = 2330

R-Sq = 88.1%

R-Sq(adj) = 87.6%

Analysis of Variance

Source

DF

SS

MS

F

Regression

6 5771700580

961950097

177.15

Residual Error

143

776526103

5430252

Total

149 6548226683

10000

5000

RESI1

59

-5000

10

20

Experien

30

40

- 1043

VIF

6.7

4.0

2.6

1.2

1.1

1.1

P

0.000

10000

RESI1

5000

-5000

10

20

yrs_asoc

10000

RESI1

5000

-5000

10

yrs_full

20

60

10000

RESI1

5000

-5000

0.0

0.5

1.0

Sex_1Fem

10000

5000

RESI1

61

-5000

0.0

0.5

Market

1.0

62

10000

RESI1

5000

-5000

0.0

0.5

1.0

C8

The residual plot for Experience shows a relatively strong quadratic relationship

between Experience and Salary. Therefore, a new variable, taking into account the

quadratic relationship is generated and added to the model. None of the other

residual plots shows strong evidence of non-linearity.

Regression Analysis: Salary versus Experien, ExperSquared, ...

The regression equation is

Salary = 18915 + 875 Experien - 15.9 ExperSquared + 222 yrs_asoc + 612

yrs_full

- 650 Sex_1Fem + 3978 Market + 1042 C8

Predictor

Coef

SE Coef

T

P

VIF

Constant

18915.2

583.2

32.43

0.000

Experien

875.35

72.20

12.12

0.000

20.6

ExperSqu

-15.947

1.717

-9.29

0.000

16.2

yrs_asoc

221.58

59.40

3.73

0.000

4.0

yrs_full

612.10

48.63

12.59

0.000

2.8

Sex_1Fem

-650.1

379.6

-1.71

0.089

1.2

Market

3978.3

598.8

6.64

0.000

1.1

C8

1042.3

467.1

2.23

0.027

1.1

S = 1844

R-Sq = 92.6%

R-Sq(adj) = 92.3%

Analysis of Variance

Source

DF

SS

MS

F

Regression

7 6065189270

866455610

254.71

Residual Error

142

483037413

3401672

Total

149 6548226683

Source

Experien

ExperSqu

yrs_asoc

yrs_full

Sex_1Fem

Market

C8

DF

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Seq SS

5109486518

91663414

15948822

678958872

12652358

139540652

16938635

P

0.000

63

The squared term for experience is statistically significant; however, the Sex_1Fem

is no longer significant at the .05 level and hence is removed from the model:

Regression Analysis: Salary versus Experien, ExperSquared, ...

The regression equation is

Salary = 18538 + 888 Experien - 16.3 ExperSquared + 237 yrs_asoc

+ 624 yrs_full

+ 3982 Market + 1145 C8

Predictor

Coef

SE Coef

T

P

VIF

Constant

18537.8

543.6

34.10

0.000

Experien

887.85

72.32

12.28

0.000

20.4

ExperSqu

-16.275

1.718

-9.48

0.000

16.0

yrs_asoc

236.89

59.11

4.01

0.000

3.9

yrs_full

624.49

48.41

12.90

0.000

2.8

Market

3981.8

602.9

6.60

0.000

1.1

C8

1145.4

466.3

2.46

0.015

1.0

S = 1857

R-Sq = 92.5%

R-Sq(adj) = 92.2%

Analysis of Variance

Source

DF

SS

MS

F

Regression

6 6055213011 1009202168

292.72

Residual Error

143

493013673

3447648

Total

149 6548226683

P

0.000

This is the final model with all of the independent variables being conditionally

significant, including the quadratic transformation of Experience. This would

indicate that a non-linear relationship exists between experience and salary.

13.107

Correlations: hseval, Comper, Homper, Indper, sizehse, incom72

hseval

-0.335

0.001

Comper

Homper

0.145

0.171

-0.499

0.000

Indper

-0.086

0.419

-0.140

0.188

-0.564

0.000

sizehse

0.542

0.000

-0.278

0.008

0.274

0.009

-0.245

0.020

incom72

0.426

0.000

-0.198

0.062

-0.083

0.438

0.244

0.020

Comper

Homper

Indper

sizehse

0.393

0.000

The correlation matrix indicates that the size of the house, income and percent

homeowners have a positive relationship with house value. There is a negative

relationship between the percent industrial and percent commercial and house

value.

64

The regression equation is

hseval = - 19.0 - 26.4 Comper - 12.1 Homper - 15.5 Indper + 7.22

sizehse

+ 0.00408 incom72

Predictor

Coef

SE Coef

T

P

VIF

Constant

-19.02

13.20

-1.44

0.153

Comper

-26.393

9.890

-2.67

0.009

2.2

Homper

-12.123

7.508

-1.61

0.110

3.0

Indper

-15.531

8.630

-1.80

0.075

2.6

sizehse

7.219

2.138

3.38

0.001

1.5

incom72

0.004081

0.001555

2.62

0.010

1.4

S = 3.949

R-Sq = 40.1%

R-Sq(adj) = 36.5%

Analysis of Variance

Source

DF

SS

MS

F

Regression

5

876.80

175.36

11.25

Residual Error

84

1309.83

15.59

Total

89

2186.63

P

0.000

All variables are conditionally significant with the exception of Indper and Homper.

Since Homper has the smaller t-statistic, it is removed:

Regression Analysis: hseval versus Comper, Indper, sizehse,

incom72

The regression equation is

hseval = - 30.9 - 15.2 Comper - 5.73 Indper + 7.44 sizehse +

0.00418 incom72

Predictor

Coef

SE Coef

T

P

VIF

Constant

-30.88

11.07

-2.79

0.007

Comper

-15.211

7.126

-2.13

0.036

1.1

Indper

-5.735

6.194

-0.93

0.357

1.3

sizehse

7.439

2.154

3.45

0.001

1.5

incom72

0.004175

0.001569

2.66

0.009

1.4

S = 3.986

R-Sq = 38.2%

R-Sq(adj) = 35.3%

Analysis of Variance

Source

DF

SS

MS

F

Regression

4

836.15

209.04

13.16

Residual Error

85

1350.48

15.89

Total

89

2186.63

P

0.000

Regression Analysis: hseval versus Comper, sizehse, incom72

The regression equation is

hseval = - 34.2 - 13.9 Comper + 8.27 sizehse + 0.00364 incom72

Predictor

Coef

SE Coef

T

P

VIF

Constant

-34.24

10.44

-3.28

0.002

Comper

-13.881

6.974

-1.99

0.050

1.1

sizehse

8.270

1.957

4.23

0.000

1.2

incom72

0.003636

0.001456

2.50

0.014

1.2

S = 3.983

R-Sq = 37.6%

Analysis of Variance

Source

DF

Regression

3

Residual Error

86

Total

89

SS

822.53

1364.10

2186.63

R-Sq(adj) = 35.4%

MS

274.18

15.86

F

17.29

P

0.000

65

This becomes the final regression model. The selection of a community with the

objective of having larger house values would include communities where the

percent of commercial property is low, the median rooms per residence is high and

the per capita income is high.

13.108

a. Correlation matrix:

Correlations: deaths, vehwt, impcars, lghttrks, carage

vehwt

impcars

lghttrks

carage

deaths

0.244

0.091

vehwt

impcars lghttrks

-0.284

0.048

-0.943

0.000

0.726

0.000

0.157

0.282

-0.175

0.228

-0.422

0.003

0.123

0.400

0.011

0.943

-0.329

0.021

Crash deaths are positively related to vehicle weight and percentage of light trucks

and negatively related to percent imported cars and car age. Light trucks will have

the strongest linear association of any independent variable followed by car age.

Multicollinearity is likely to exist due to the strong correlation between impcars

and vehicle weight.

b.

Regression Analysis: deaths versus vehwt, impcars, lghttrks, carage

The regression equation is

deaths = 2.60 +0.000064 vehwt - 0.00121 impcars

lghttrks

- 0.0395 carage

Predictor

Coef

SE Coef

T

Constant

2.597

1.247

2.08

vehwt

0.0000643

0.0001908

0.34

impcars

-0.001213

0.005249

-0.23

lghttrks

0.008332

0.001397

5.96

carage

-0.03946

0.01916

-2.06

+ 0.00833

P

0.043

0.738

0.818

0.000

0.045

S = 0.05334

R-Sq = 59.5%

R-Sq(adj) = 55.8%

Analysis of Variance

Source

DF

SS

MS

F

Regression

4

0.183634

0.045909

16.14

Residual Error

44

0.125174

0.002845

Total

48

0.308809

VIF

10.9

10.6

1.2

1.4

P

0.000

Light trucks is a significant positive variable. Since impcars has the smallest tstatistic, it is removed from the model:

66

The regression equation is

deaths = 2.55 +0.000106 vehwt + 0.00831 lghttrks - 0.0411 carage

Predictor

Coef

SE Coef

T

P

VIF

Constant

2.555

1.220

2.09

0.042

vehwt

0.00010622 0.00005901

1.80

0.079

1.1

lghttrks

0.008312

0.001380

6.02

0.000

1.2

carage

-0.04114

0.01754

-2.34

0.024

1.2

S = 0.05277

R-Sq = 59.4%

Analysis of Variance

Source

DF

Regression

3

Residual Error

45

Total

48

SS

0.183482

0.125326

0.308809

R-Sq(adj) = 56.7%

MS

0.061161

0.002785

F

21.96

P

0.000

Regression Analysis: deaths versus lghttrks, carage

The regression equation is

deaths = 2.51 + 0.00883 lghttrks - 0.0352 carage

Predictor

Coef

SE Coef

T

P

Constant

2.506

1.249

2.01

0.051

lghttrks

0.008835

0.001382

6.39

0.000

carage

-0.03522

0.01765

-2.00

0.052

S = 0.05404

R-Sq = 56.5%

Analysis of Variance

Source

DF

Regression

2

Residual Error

46

Total

48

SS

0.174458

0.134351

0.308809

VIF

1.1

1.1

R-Sq(adj) = 54.6%

MS

0.087229

0.002921

F

29.87

P

0.000

The model has light trucks and car age as the significant variables. Note that car

age is marginally significant (p-value of .052) and hence could also be dropped

from the model.

c. The regression modeling indicates that the percentage of light trucks is

conditionally significant in all of the models and hence is an important predictor

in the model. Car age and imported cars are marginally significant predictors

when only light trucks is included in the model.

13.109

a. Correlation matrix:

Correlations: deaths, Purbanpop, Ruspeed, Prsurf

deaths Purbanpo

Purbanpo -0.594

0.000

Ruspeed

Prsurf

0.305

0.033

-0.224

0.121

-0.556

0.000

0.207

0.153

Ruspeed

-0.232

0.109

67

Variable

deaths

Purbanpo

Prsurf

Ruspeed

N

49

49

49

49

Mean

0.1746

0.5890

0.7980

58.186

Median

0.1780

0.6311

0.8630

58.400

TrMean

0.1675

0.5992

0.8117

58.222

Variable

deaths

Purbanpo

Prsurf

Ruspeed

Minimum

0.0569

0.0000

0.2721

53.500

Maximum

0.5505

0.9689

1.0000

62.200

Q1

0.1240

0.4085

0.6563

57.050

Q3

0.2050

0.8113

0.9485

59.150

StDev

0.0802

0.2591

0.1928

1.683

SE Mean

0.0115

0.0370

0.0275

0.240

The proportion of urban population and rural roads that are surfaced are negatively

related to crash deaths. Average rural speed is positively related, but the

relationship is not as strong as the proportion of urban population and surfaced

roads. The simple correlation coefficients among the independent variables are

relatively low and hence multicollinearity should not be dominant in this model.

Note the relatively narrow range for average rural speed. This would indicate that

there is not much variability in this independent variable.

b. Multiple regression

Regression Analysis: deaths versus Purbanpop, Prsurf, Ruspeed

The regression equation is

deaths = 0.141 - 0.149 Purbanpop - 0.181 Prsurf + 0.00457 Ruspeed

Predictor

Constant

Purbanpo

Prsurf

Ruspeed

S = 0.05510

Coef

0.1408

-0.14946

-0.18058

0.004569

SE Coef

0.2998

0.03192

0.04299

0.004942

R-Sq = 55.8%

Analysis of Variance

Source

DF

Regression

3

Residual Error

45

Total

48

SS

0.172207

0.136602

0.308809

T

0.47

-4.68

-4.20

0.92

P

0.641

0.000

0.000

0.360

VIF

1.1

1.1

1.1

R-Sq(adj) = 52.8%

MS

0.057402

0.003036

F

18.91

P

0.000

The model has conditionally significant variables for percent urban population and

percent surfaced roads. Since average rural speed is not conditionally significant,

it is dropped from the model:

68

The regression equation is

deaths = 0.416 - 0.155 Purbanpop - 0.188 Prsurf

Predictor

Coef

SE Coef

T

P

Constant

0.41609

0.03569

11.66

0.000

Purbanpo

-0.15493

0.03132

-4.95

0.000

Prsurf

-0.18831

0.04210

-4.47

0.000

S = 0.05501

R-Sq = 54.9%

Analysis of Variance

Source

DF

Regression

2

Residual Error

46

Total

48

VIF

1.0

1.0

R-Sq(adj) = 53.0%

SS

0.169612

0.139197

0.308809

MS

0.084806

0.003026

F

28.03

P

0.000

This becomes the final model since both variables are conditionally significant.

c. Conclude that the proportions of urban populations and the percent of rural

roads that are surfaced are important independent variables in explaining crash

deaths. All else equal, increases in the proportion of urban population, the

lower the crash deaths. All else equal, increases in the proportion of rural

roads that are surfaced will result in lower crash deaths. The average rural

speed is not conditionally significant.

13.110 a. Correlation matrix and descriptive statistics

Correlations: hseval, sizehse, Taxhse, Comper, incom72, totexp

sizehse

Taxhse

Comper

incom72

totexp

hseval

0.542

0.000

0.248

0.019

-0.335

0.001

0.426

0.000

0.261

0.013

sizehse

Taxhse

Comper

incom72

0.289

0.006

-0.278

0.008

0.393

0.000

-0.022

0.834

-0.114

0.285

0.261

0.013

0.228

0.030

-0.198

0.062

0.269

0.010

0.376

0.000

this model since all of the correlations among the independent variables are

relatively low.

69

Variable

hseval

sizehse

Taxhse

Comper

incom72

totexp

N

90

90

90

90

90

90

Mean

21.031

5.4778

130.13

0.16211

3360.9

1488848

Median

20.301

5.4000

131.67

0.15930

3283.0

1089110

TrMean

20.687

5.4638

128.31

0.16206

3353.2

1295444

Variable

hseval

sizehse

Taxhse

Comper

incom72

totexp

Minimum

13.300

5.0000

35.04

0.02805

2739.0

361290

Maximum

35.976

6.2000

399.60

0.28427

4193.0

7062330

Q1

17.665

5.3000

98.85

0.11388

3114.3

808771

Q3

24.046

5.6000

155.19

0.20826

3585.3

1570275

StDev

4.957

0.2407

48.89

0.06333

317.0

1265564

SE Mean

0.522

0.0254

5.15

0.00668

33.4

133402

The range for applying the regression model (variable means + / - 2 standard errors):

Hseval 21.03 +/- 2(4.957) = 11.11 to 30.94

Sizehse5.48 +/- 2(.24) = 5.0 to 5.96

Taxhse

130.13 +/- 2(48.89) = 32.35 to 227.91

Comper

.16 +/- 2(.063) = .034 to .286

Incom72

3361 +/- 2(317) = 2727 to 3995

Totexp

1488848 +/- 2(1265564) = not a good approximation

b. Regression models:

Regression Analysis: hseval versus sizehse, Taxhse, ...

The regression equation is

hseval = - 31.1 + 9.10 sizehse - 0.00058 Taxhse

incom72

+0.000001 totexp

Predictor

Coef

SE Coef

T

Constant

-31.07

10.09

-3.08

sizehse

9.105

1.927

4.72

Taxhse

-0.000584

0.008910

-0.07

Comper

-22.197

7.108

-3.12

incom72

0.001200

0.001566

0.77

totexp

0.00000125 0.00000038

3.28

S = 3.785

R-Sq = 45.0%

Analysis of Variance

Source

DF

Regression

5

Residual Error

84

Total

89

SS

982.98

1203.65

2186.63

P

0.003

0.000

0.948

0.002

0.445

0.002

VIF

1.3

1.2

1.3

1.5

1.5

R-Sq(adj) = 41.7%

MS

196.60

14.33

F

13.72

P

0.000

Taxhse is not conditionally significant, nor is income; however, dropping one variable at a

time, eliminate Taxhse first, then eliminate income:

70

The regression equation is

hseval = - 29.9 + 9.61 sizehse - 23.5 Comper +0.000001 totexp

Predictor

Coef

SE Coef

T

P

VIF

Constant

-29.875

9.791

-3.05

0.003

sizehse

9.613

1.724

5.58

0.000

1.1

Comper

-23.482

6.801

-3.45

0.001

1.2

totexp

0.00000138 0.00000033

4.22

0.000

1.1

S = 3.754

R-Sq = 44.6%

Analysis of Variance

Source

DF

Regression

3

Residual Error

86

Total

89

R-Sq(adj) = 42.6%

SS

974.55

1212.08

2186.63

MS

324.85

14.09

F

23.05

P

0.000

This is the final regression model. All of the independent variables are

conditionally significant.

Both the size of house and total government expenditures enhances market value

of homes while the percent of commercial property tends to reduce market values

of homes.

c. In the final regression model, the tax variable was not found to be conditionally

significant and hence it is difficult to support the developers claim.

13.111

a. Correlation matrix

Correlations: retsal84, Unemp84, perinc84

retsal84

-0.370

0.008

perinc84 0.633

0.000

Unemp84

Unemp84

-0.232

0.101

There is a positive association between per capita income and retail sales. There is

a negative association between unemployment and retail sales. High correlation

among the independent variables does not appear to be a problem since the

correlation between the independent variables is relatively low.

Descriptive Statistics: retsal84, perinc84, Unemp84

Variable

retsal84

perinc84

Unemp84

N

51

51

51

Mean

5536

12277

7.335

Median

5336

12314

7.000

TrMean

5483

12166

7.196

Variable

retsal84

perinc84

Minimum

4250

8857

Maximum

8348

17148

Q1

5059

10689

Q3

6037

13218

StDev

812

1851

2.216

SE Mean

114

259

0.310

71

The regression equation is

retsal84 = 3054 - 86.3 Unemp84 + 0.254 perinc84

Predictor

Coef

SE Coef

T

P

Constant

3054.3

724.4

4.22

0.000

Unemp84

-86.25

40.20

-2.15

0.037

perinc84

0.25368

0.04815

5.27

0.000

S = 612.9

R-Sq = 45.3%

Analysis of Variance

Source

DF

Regression

2

Residual Error

48

Total

50

VIF

1.1

1.1

R-Sq(adj) = 43.0%

SS

14931938

18029333

32961271

MS

7465969

375611

F

19.88

P

0.000

This is the final model since all of the independent variables are conditionally significant at

the .05 level. The 95% confidence intervals for the regression slope coefficients:

1 t ( S ) : -86.25 +/- 2.011(40.2) = -86.25 +/- 80.84

1

2 t ( S ) :

2

b.

All things equal, the condition effect of a $1,000 decrease in per capita income

on retail sales would be to reduce retail sales by $254.

c.

Regression Analysis: retsal84 versus Unemp84, perinc84, Totpop84

The regression equation is

retsal84 = 2828 - 71.3 Unemp84 + 0.272 perinc84 - 0.0247 Totpop84

Predictor

Coef

SE Coef

T

P

VIF

Constant

2828.4

737.9

3.83

0.000

Unemp84

-71.33

41.40

-1.72

0.091

1.1

perinc84

0.27249

0.04977

5.47

0.000

1.1

Totpop84

-0.02473

0.01845

-1.34

0.187

1.1

S = 607.8

R-Sq = 47.3%

R-Sq(adj) = 44.0%

Analysis of Variance

Source

DF

SS

MS

F

Regression

3

15595748

5198583

14.07

Residual Error

47

17365523

369479

Total

50

32961271

P

0.000

The population variable is not conditionally significant and adds little explanatory power,

therefore, it will not improve the multiple regression model.

13.112 a.

Correlations: FRH, FBPR, FFED, FM2, GDPH, GH

FBPR

FFED

FM2

GDPH

GH

FRH

0.510

0.000

0.244

0.001

0.854

0.000

0.934

0.000

0.907

FBPR

FFED

FM2

GDPH

0.957

0.000

0.291

0.000

0.580

0.000

0.592

0.077

0.326

0.287

0.000

0.285

0.987

0.000

0.977

0.973

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

72

0.000

The correlation matrix shows that both interest rates have a significant positive

impact on residential investment. The money supply, GDP and government

expenditures also have a significant linear association with residential investment.

Note the high correlation between the two interest rate variables, which, as

expected, would create significant problems if both variables are included in the

regression model. Hence, the interest rates will be developed in two separate

models.

Regression Analysis: FRH versus FBPR, FM2, GDPH, GH

The regression equation is

FRH = 70.0 - 3.79 FBPR - 0.0542 FM2 + 0.0932 GDPH - 0.165 GH

166 cases used 52 cases contain missing values

Predictor

Coef

SE Coef

T

P

VIF

Constant

70.00

24.87

2.82

0.005

FBPR

-3.7871

0.6276

-6.03

0.000

1.2

FM2

-0.054210

0.009210

-5.89

0.000

46.8

GDPH

0.093223

0.007389

12.62

0.000

58.1

GH

-0.16514

0.03747

-4.41

0.000

28.7

S = 23.42

R-Sq = 86.7%

R-Sq(adj) = 86.3%

Analysis of Variance

Source

DF

SS

MS

F

Regression

4

573700

143425

261.42

Residual Error

161

88331

549

Total

165

662030

P

0.000

This will be the final model with prime rate as the interest rate variable since all of

the independent variables are conditionally significant. Note the significant

multicollinearity that exists between the independent variables.

Regression Analysis: FRH versus FFED, FM2, GDPH, GH

The regression equation is

FRH = 55.0 - 2.76 FFED - 0.0558 FM2 + 0.0904 GDPH - 0.148 GH

166 cases used 52 cases contain missing values

Predictor

Coef

SE Coef

T

P

VIF

Constant

55.00

26.26

2.09

0.038

FFED

-2.7640

0.6548

-4.22

0.000

1.2

FM2

-0.05578

0.01007

-5.54

0.000

50.7

GDPH

0.090402

0.007862

11.50

0.000

59.6

GH

-0.14752

0.03922

-3.76

0.000

28.5

S = 24.61

R-Sq = 85.3%

R-Sq(adj) = 84.9%

Analysis of Variance

Source

DF

SS

MS

F

Regression

4

564511

141128

233.00

Residual Error

161

97519

606

Total

165

662030

P

0.000

The model with the federal funds rate as the interest rate variable is also the final

model with all of the independent variables conditionally significant. Again, high

correlation among the independent variables will be a problem with this regression

model.

73

b. 95% confidence intervals for the slope coefficients on the interest rate term:

Bank prime rate as the interest rate variable:

1 t ( S ) : -3.7871 +/- 1.96(.6276) = -3.7871 +/- 1.23

1

1 t ( S ) : -2.764 +/- 1.96(.6548) = -2.764 +/- 1.2834

1

13.112 a.

Correlations: Infmrt82, Phys82, Perinc84, Perhosp

Infmrt82

0.434

0.001

Perinc84 0.094

0.511

Perhosp

0.411

0.003

Phys82 Perinc84

Phys82

0.614

0.000

0.285

0.042

0.267

0.058

The correlation matrix shows a positive association with Phys82 and Perhosp.

These variables are the number of physicians per 100,000 population and the total

per capita expenditures for hospitals. One would expect a negative association,

therefore, examine the scatterdiagram of infant mortality vs. phys82:

Infmrt82

20

15

10

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

550

Phys82

The graph shows an obvious outlier which, upon further investigation, is the

District of Columbia. Due to the outlier status, this row is dropped from the

analysis and the correlation matrix is recalculated:

74

Infmrt82

-0.147

0.309

Perinc84 -0.192

0.181

Perhosp

0.199

0.166

Phys82 Perinc84

Phys82

0.574

0.000

-0.065

0.654

0.140

0.331

The physicians per 100,000 population now has the correct sign, however, none of

the independent variables has a statistically significant linear association with the

dependent variable. Per capita expenditures for hospitals is an unexpected positive

sign; however, it is not conditionally significant. The multiple regression results

are likely to yield low explanatory power with insignificant independent variables:

Regression Analysis: Infmrt82 versus Phys82, Perinc84, Perhosp

The regression equation is

Infmrt82 = 12.7 - 0.00017 Phys82 -0.000206 Perinc84 + 6.30 Perhosp

Predictor

Coef

SE Coef

T

P

VIF

Constant

12.701

1.676

7.58

0.000

Phys82

-0.000167

0.006647

-0.03

0.980

1.5

Perinc84

-0.0002064

0.0001637

-1.26

0.214

1.6

Perhosp

6.297

3.958

1.59

0.118

1.1

S = 1.602

R-Sq = 8.9%

R-Sq(adj) = 3.0%

Analysis of Variance

Source

DF

SS

MS

F

Regression

3

11.546

3.849

1.50

Residual Error

46

118.029

2.566

Total

49

129.575

P

0.227

As expected, the model explains less than 9% of the variability in infant mortality.

None of the independent variables are conditionally significant and high correlation

among the independent variables does not appear to be a significant problem. The

standard error of the estimate is very large (1.602) relative to the size of the infant

mortality rates and hence the model would not be a good predictor. Sequentially

dropping the independent variable with the lowest t-statistic confirms the

conclusion that none of the independnet variables is conditionally significant. The

search is on for better independent variables.

b. The two variables to include are per capita spending on education (PerEduc)

and per capita spending on public welfare (PerPbwel). Since the conditional

significance of the independent variables is a function of other independent

variables in the model, we will include the original set of variables:

75

The regression equation is

Infmrt82 = 12.2 - 0.00122 Phys82 +0.000015 Perinc84 + 8.87 Perhosp

- 1.96 PerEduc - 4.56 PerPbwel

Predictor

Coef

SE Coef

T

P

VIF

Constant

12.167

1.654

7.35

0.000

Phys82

-0.001219

0.008028

-0.15

0.880

2.4

Perinc84

0.0000152

0.0001942

0.08

0.938

2.4

Perhosp

8.872

4.010

2.21

0.032

1.2

PerEduc

-1.960

1.315

-1.49

0.143

1.8

PerPbwel

-4.555

3.360

-1.36

0.182

1.7

S = 1.550

R-Sq = 18.4%

R-Sq(adj) = 9.1%

Analysis of Variance

Source

DF

SS

MS

F

Regression

5

23.848

4.770

1.98

Residual Error

44

105.727

2.403

Total

49

129.575

P

0.100

The model shows low explanatory power and only one independent variable that is

conditionally significant (Perhosp). Dropping sequentially the independent variable

with the lowest t-statistic yields a model with no conditionally significant

independent variables. This problem illustrates that in some applications, the

variables that have been identified as theoretically important predictors do not

meet the statistical test.

13.114 a.

Correlations: Salary, age, yrs_asoc, yrs_full, Sex_1Fem, Market, C8

Salary

0.749

0.000

yrs_asoc 0.698

0.000

yrs_full 0.777

0.000

Sex_1Fem -0.429

0.000

Market

0.026

0.750

C8

-0.029

0.721

Market

age

0.712

0.000

0.583

0.000

-0.234

0.004

-0.134

0.103

-0.189

0.020

0.312

0.000

-0.367

0.000

-0.113

0.169

-0.073

0.373

-0.292

0.000

-0.017

0.833

-0.043

0.598

0.062

0.453

-0.094

0.254

-0.107

0.192

The correlation matrix indicates several independent variables that should provide

good explanatory power in the regression model. We would expect that age, years

at Associate professor and years at full professor are likely to be conditionally

significant:

76

The regression equation is

Salary = 21107 + 105 age + 532 yrs_asoc + 690 yrs_full - 1312

Sex_1Fem

+ 2854 Market + 1101 C8

Predictor

Coef

SE Coef

T

P

VIF

Constant

21107

1599

13.20

0.000

age

104.59

40.62

2.58

0.011

3.1

yrs_asoc

532.27

63.66

8.36

0.000

2.4

yrs_full

689.93

52.66

13.10

0.000

1.7

Sex_1Fem

-1311.8

532.3

-2.46

0.015

1.3

Market

2853.9

823.3

3.47

0.001

1.0

C8

1101.0

658.1

1.67

0.097

1.1

S = 2569

R-Sq = 85.6%

Analysis of Variance

Source

DF

Regression

6

Residual Error

143

Total

149

SS

5604244075

943982608

6548226683

R-Sq(adj) = 85.0%

MS

934040679

6601277

F

141.49

P

0.000

Regression Analysis: Salary versus age, yrs_asoc, ...

The regression equation is

Salary = 21887 + 90.0 age + 539 yrs_asoc + 697 yrs_full - 1397

Sex_1Fem

+ 2662 Market

Predictor

Coef

SE Coef

T

P

VIF

Constant

21887

1539

14.22

0.000

age

90.02

39.92

2.26

0.026

3.0

yrs_asoc

539.48

63.91

8.44

0.000

2.4

yrs_full

697.35

52.80

13.21

0.000

1.7

Sex_1Fem

-1397.2

533.2

-2.62

0.010

1.2

Market

2662.3

820.3

3.25

0.001

1.0

S = 2585

R-Sq = 85.3%

Analysis of Variance

Source

DF

Regression

5

Residual Error

144

Total

149

SS

5585766862

962459821

6548226683

R-Sq(adj) = 84.8%

MS

1117153372

6683749

F

167.14

P

0.000

This is the final model. All of the independent variables are conditionally

significant and the model explains a sizeable portion of the variability in salary.

b. To test the hypothesis that the rate of change in female salaries as a function of

age is less than the rate of change in male salaries as a function of age, the

dummy variable Sex_1Fem is used to see if the slope coefficient for age (X1) is

different for males and females. The following model is used:

Y 0 ( 1 6 X 4 ) X 1 2 X 2 3 X 3 4 X 4 5 X 5

0 1 X 1 6 X 4 X 1 2 X 2 3 X 3 4 X 4 5 X 5

77

Create the variable X4X1 and then test for conditional significance in the regression model.

If it proves to be a significant predictor of salaries then there is strong evidence to

conclude that the rate of change in female salaries as a function of age is different than for

males:

Regression Analysis: Salary versus age, femage, ...

The regression equation is

Salary = 22082 + 85.1 age + 11.7 femage + 543 yrs_asoc + 701 yrs_full

- 1878 Sex_1Fem + 2673 Market

Predictor

Coef

SE Coef

T

P

VIF

Constant

22082

1877

11.77

0.000

age

85.07

48.36

1.76

0.081

4.4

femage

11.66

63.89

0.18

0.855

32.2

yrs_asoc

542.85

66.73

8.13

0.000

2.6

yrs_full

701.35

57.35

12.23

0.000

2.0

Sex_1Fem

-1878

2687

-0.70

0.486

31.5

Market

2672.8

825.1

3.24

0.001

1.0

S = 2594

R-Sq = 85.3%

R-Sq(adj) = 84.7%

Analysis of Variance

Source

DF

SS

MS

F

Regression

6 5585990999

930998500

138.36

Residual Error

143

962235684

6728921

Total

149 6548226683

P

0.000

The regression shows that the newly created variable of femage is not conditionally

significant. Thus, we cannot conclude that the rate of change in female salaries as a

function of age differs from that of male salaries.

13.115

Regression Analysis: hseval versus sizehse, taxrate, incom72, Homper

The regression equation is

hseval = - 32.7 + 6.74 sizehse - 223 taxrate + 0.00464 incom72 + 11.2

Homper

Predictor

Coef

SE Coef

T

P

VIF

Constant

-32.694

8.972

-3.64

0.000

sizehse

6.740

1.880

3.58

0.001

1.4

taxrate

-222.96

45.39

-4.91

0.000

1.2

incom72

0.004642

0.001349

3.44

0.001

1.2

Homper

11.215

4.592

2.44

0.017

1.3

S = 3.610

R-Sq = 49.3%

R-Sq(adj) = 47.0%

Analysis of Variance

Source

DF

SS

MS

F

Regression

4

1079.08

269.77

20.70

Residual Error

85

1107.55

13.03

Total

89

2186.63

P

0.000

All of the independent variables are conditionally significant. Now add the percent of

commercial property to the model to see if it is significant:

78

The regression equation is

hseval = - 31.6 + 6.76 sizehse - 218 taxrate + 0.00453 incom72 + 10.3

Homper

- 2.18 Comper

Predictor

Coef

SE Coef

T

P

VIF

Constant

-31.615

9.839

-3.21

0.002

sizehse

6.757

1.892

3.57

0.001

1.4

taxrate

-217.63

49.58

-4.39

0.000

1.4

incom72

0.004534

0.001412

3.21

0.002

1.4

Homper

10.287

5.721

1.80

0.076

2.0

Comper

-2.182

7.940

-0.27

0.784

1.7

S = 3.630

R-Sq = 49.4%

R-Sq(adj) = 46.4%

Analysis of Variance

Source

DF

SS

MS

F

Regression

5

1080.07

216.01

16.40

Residual Error

84

1106.56

13.17

Total

89

2186.63

P

0.000

With a t-statistic of -.27 we have not found strong enough evidence to reject H 0 that the

slope coefficient on percent commercial property is significantly different from zero. The

conditional F test:

SSRF SSRR 1080.07 1079.08

FComper

S 2Y | X

(3.63)2

alpha, do not reject H 0 that the percent commercial property has no effect on house

values.

Add percent industrial property to the base model:

Regression Analysis: hseval versus sizehse, taxrate, ...

The regression equation is

hseval = - 28.6 + 6.10 sizehse - 232 taxrate + 0.00521 incom72 + 8.68

Homper

- 7.50 Indper

Predictor

Coef

SE Coef

T

P

VIF

Constant

-28.643

9.602

-2.98

0.004

sizehse

6.096

1.956

3.12

0.003

1.5

taxrate

-232.34

46.00

-5.05

0.000

1.2

incom72

0.005208

0.001431

3.64

0.000

1.4

Homper

8.681

5.070

1.71

0.091

1.6

Indper

-7.505

6.427

-1.17

0.246

1.7

S = 3.602

R-Sq = 50.2%

Analysis of Variance

Source

DF

Regression

5

Residual Error

84

Total

89

SS

1096.77

1089.86

2186.63

R-Sq(adj) = 47.2%

MS

219.35

12.97

F

16.91

P

0.000

Likewise, the percent industrial property is not significantly different from zero. The

RSS5 RSS 4 1096.77 1079.08

FIndper

conditional F test:

S 2Y | X

(3.602) 2

79

lower than the critical value of F based on common levels of alpha, therefore, do not reject

H 0 that the percent industrial property has no effect on house values.

Tax rate models:

Regression Analysis: taxrate versus taxbase, expercap, Homper

The regression equation is

taxrate = - 0.0174 -0.000000 taxbase +0.000162 expercap + 0.0424 Homper

Predictor

Coef

SE Coef

T

P

VIF

Constant

-0.017399

0.007852

-2.22

0.029

taxbase

-0.00000000 0.00000000

-0.80

0.426

1.2

expercap

0.00016204 0.00003160

5.13

0.000

1.1

Homper

0.042361

0.009378

4.52

0.000

1.2

S = 0.007692

R-Sq = 31.9%

R-Sq(adj) = 29.5%

Analysis of Variance

Source

DF

SS

MS

F

Regression

3 0.00237926 0.00079309

13.41

Residual Error

86 0.00508785 0.00005916

Total

89 0.00746711

P

0.000

Regression Analysis: taxrate versus expercap, Homper

The regression equation is

taxrate = - 0.0192 +0.000158 expercap + 0.0448 Homper

Predictor

Coef

SE Coef

T

P

Constant

-0.019188

0.007511

-2.55

0.012

expercap

0.00015767 0.00003106

5.08

0.000

Homper

0.044777

0.008860

5.05

0.000

S = 0.007676

R-Sq = 31.4%

R-Sq(adj) = 29.8%

Analysis of Variance

Source

DF

SS

MS

F

Regression

2

0.0023414

0.0011707

19.87

Residual Error

87

0.0051257

0.0000589

Total

89

0.0074671

VIF

1.1

1.1

P

0.000

Both of the independent variables are significant. This becomes the base model that we

now add percent commercial property and percent industrial property sequentially:

Regression Analysis: taxrate versus expercap, Homper, Comper

The regression equation is

taxrate = - 0.0413 +0.000157 expercap + 0.0643 Homper + 0.0596 Comper

Predictor

Coef

SE Coef

T

P

VIF

Constant

-0.041343

0.008455

-4.89

0.000

expercap

0.00015660 0.00002819

5.55

0.000

1.1

Homper

0.064320

0.009172

7.01

0.000

1.4

Comper

0.05960

0.01346

4.43

0.000

1.3

S = 0.006966

R-Sq = 44.1%

Analysis of Variance

Source

DF

Regression

3

Residual Error

86

Total

89

SS

0.0032936

0.0041735

0.0074671

R-Sq(adj) = 42.2%

MS

0.0010979

0.0000485

F

22.62

P

0.000

80

variable as shown by the conditional F-test:

RSS3 RSS 2 .003294 .00234

FComper

19.62

S 2Y | X

(.006966) 2

With 1 degree of freedom in the numberator and (90-3-1) = 86 degrees of freedom

in the denominator, the critical value of F at the .05 level is 3.95. Hence we would

conclude that the percentage of commercial property has a statistically significant positive

impact on tax rate.

We now add industrial property to test the effect on tax rate:

Regression Analysis: taxrate versus expercap, Homper, Indper

The regression equation is

taxrate = - 0.0150 +0.000156 expercap + 0.0398 Homper - 0.0105 Indper

Predictor

Coef

SE Coef

T

P

VIF

Constant

-0.015038

0.009047

-1.66

0.100

expercap

0.00015586 0.00003120

5.00

0.000

1.1

Homper

0.03982

0.01071

3.72

0.000

1.6

Indper

-0.01052

0.01273

-0.83

0.411

1.5

S = 0.007690

R-Sq = 31.9%

R-Sq(adj) = 29.5%

Analysis of Variance

Source

DF

SS

MS

F

Regression

3 0.00238178 0.00079393

13.43

Residual Error

86 0.00508533 0.00005913

Total

89 0.00746711

P

0.000

The percent industrial property is insignificant with a t-statistic of only -.83. The F-test

confirms that the variable does not have a significant impact on tax rate:

RSS3 RSS 2 .002382 .00234

FIndper

S 2Y | X

(.00769) 2

numberator and (90-3-1) = 86 degrees of freedom in the denominator, the critical value of

F at the .05 level is 3.95. Hence we would conclude that the percentage of commercial

property has no statistically significant impact on tax rate.

In conclusion, we found no evidence to back three of the activists claims and strong

evidence to reject one of them. We concluded that commercial development will have no

effect on house value, while it will actually increase tax rate. In addition, we concluded

that industrial development will have no effect on house value or tax rate.

It was important to include all of the other independent variables in the regression models

because the conditional significance of any one variable is influenced by which other

independent variables are in the regression model. Therefore, it is important to test if

direct relationships can be explained by the relationships with other predictor variables.

81

13.116

a. Correlation matrix:

Correlations: EconGPA, sex, Acteng, ACTmath, ACTss, ACTcomp, HSPct

EconGPA

0.187

0.049

Acteng

0.387

0.001

ACTmath

0.338

0.003

ACTss

0.442

0.000

ACTcomp

0.474

0.000

HSPct

0.362

0.000

sex

Acteng

ACTmath

ACTss

ACTcomp

0.270

0.021

-0.170

0.151

-0.105

0.375

-0.084

0.478

0.216

0.026

0.368

0.001

0.448

0.000

0.650

0.000

0.173

0.150

0.439

0.000

0.765

0.000

0.290

0.014

0.812

0.000

0.224

0.060

0.230

0.053

sex

There exists a positive relationship between EconGPA and all of the independent variables,

which is expected. Note that there is a high correlation between the composite ACT score

and the individual components, which is again, as expected. Thus, high correlation among

the independent variables is likely to be a serious concern in this regression model.

Regression Analysis: EconGPA versus sex, Acteng, ...

The regression equation is

EconGPA = - 0.050 + 0.261 sex + 0.0099 Acteng + 0.0064 ACTmath + 0.0270

ACTss

+ 0.0419 ACTcomp + 0.00898 HSPct

71 cases used 41 cases contain missing values

Predictor

Coef

SE Coef

T

P

VIF

Constant

-0.0504

0.6554

-0.08

0.939

sex

0.2611

0.1607

1.62

0.109

1.5

Acteng

0.00991

0.02986

0.33

0.741

2.5

ACTmath

0.00643

0.03041

0.21

0.833

4.3

ACTss

0.02696

0.02794

0.96

0.338

4.7

ACTcomp

0.04188

0.07200

0.58

0.563

12.8

HSPct

0.008978

0.005716

1.57

0.121

1.4

S = 0.4971

R-Sq = 34.1%

R-Sq(adj) = 27.9%

Analysis of Variance

Source

DF

SS

MS

F

Regression

6

8.1778

1.3630

5.52

Residual Error

64

15.8166

0.2471

Total

70

23.9945

P

0.000

As expected, high correlation among the independent variables is affecting the results. A

strategy of dropping the variable with the lowest t-statistic with each successive model

causes the dropping of the following variables (in order): 1) ACTmath, 2) ACTeng, 3)

ACTss, 4) HSPct. The two variables that remain are the final model of gender and

ACTcomp:

82

The regression equation is

EconGPA = 0.322 + 0.335 sex + 0.0978 ACTcomp

73 cases used 39 cases contain missing values

Predictor

Coef

SE Coef

T

Constant

0.3216

0.5201

0.62

sex

0.3350

0.1279

2.62

ACTcomp

0.09782

0.01989

4.92

P

0.538

0.011

0.000

S = 0.4931

R-Sq = 29.4%

R-Sq(adj) = 27.3%

Analysis of Variance

Source

DF

SS

MS

F

Regression

2

7.0705

3.5352

14.54

Residual Error

70

17.0192

0.2431

Total

72

24.0897

VIF

1.0

1.0

P

0.000

b. The model could be used in college admission decisions by creating a predicted

GPA in economics based on sex and ACT comp scores. This predicted GPA

could then be used with other factors in deciding admission. Note that this

model predicts that females will outperform males with equal test scores.

Using this model as the only source of information may lead to charges of

unequal treatment.

13.117

92.7% of the total variation in gross revenue from a medical practice can be

explained by the variations in number of hours worked, number of physicians,

number of allied health personnel and the number of rooms used in the practice.

The regression model indicates that gross revenue from a medical practice is

positively associated with the number of hours worked, the number of physicians

in the the practice, the number of allied health personnel and the number of rooms

used in the practice. All of these variables are expected to have a positive effect on

gross revenue. With df = (50 4 1) = 45, the critical value of t for a two-tailed

test at an alpha of .05 is approximately 2.021. Therefore, one can conclude that all

of the independent variables are conditionally significant with the sole exception of

the number of rooms used in the practice. This variable, while a positive estimated

coefficient, is not significantly different from zero.

The number of physicians in the practice has a large effect on gross revenue since,

all else equal, for a 1% increase in the number of physicians in the practice, we

estimate an increase in the gross revenue from the medical practice by .673%.

Note however that before additional physicians are hired, the analysis should be

extended to include not only gross revenue but also profits.

- Newbold Stat8 Ism 09 GeUploaded byThi Ntd
- _newbold_ism_06.pdfUploaded byIrakli Maisuradze
- _newbold_ism_10.pdfUploaded byIrakli Maisuradze
- statistik uasUploaded byAhmad Riza Wahdi
- _newbold_ism_07.pdfUploaded byIrakli Maisuradze
- Output Regression MRIS - CopyUploaded byRajendra Kumar
- NewboldUploaded bySehar Sajjad
- _newbold_ism_08.pdfUploaded byIrakli Maisuradze
- 07 Simple Linear Regression Part2Uploaded byRama Dulce
- Simple LR Lecture.pptUploaded byEarl Kristof Li Liao
- Potato StarchUploaded bySharif M Mizanur Rahman
- Bs Project Grp 8Uploaded byRia George Kallumkal
- Confidence IntervalsUploaded byyasheshgaglani
- newbold_stat7_ism_10Uploaded byHakyeong Lee
- _newbold_ism_04.pdfUploaded byIrakli Maisuradze
- Forensic Dental Age Estimation by Measuring Root Dentin Translucency Area Using a New Digital TechniqueUploaded bySushant Pandey
- Multivariate Linear RegressionUploaded bysujitsekharmoharanaigit
- Principal Components RegressionUploaded byManjinder Singh
- THE IMPACT OF LEADERSHIP STYLES ON JOB SATISFACTION AT WORK PLACE.pdfUploaded bymansoor_uos
- LM11 Fixed (1)Uploaded byNikolay Griyseinko Kholavsky
- Multiple Regression Paper 2Uploaded byRashid Ayubi
- Solver Demonstration 2007Uploaded byDolphin Micky
- Lecture 8Uploaded byDerrick Zoleta
- GDP Gini RatioUploaded byVidya Malav
- Multiple RegressionUploaded byKhawaja Naveed Haider
- Lampiran 6Uploaded byTri Eri Setianingsih
- Residuals Statisticsa.docxUploaded bymuklis
- Nifty 500 Data SetUploaded byrohit
- BatchUploaded bycarolina
- JURNAL STATISTIK.pdfUploaded byAni Yunita Sari

- docslide.us_011-minna-no-nihongo-shokyuu-ii-mondai-no-sukuripto-kotae-fukushyuu-nokotae-booklet.pdfUploaded bybortycan
- Troubleshooting Guide.pdfUploaded bybortycan
- Entrepreneurial_Intentions_A_Comparison_Between_Kosovo_And_Turkey.pdfUploaded bybortycan
- Living in JapanUploaded bybortycan
- Entrepreneurial_Intentions of_Turkish_Business_Students_An_Exploration_Using_Shapero’s_Model.pdfUploaded bybortycan
- Round 1 Submission GBCUploaded bybortycan
- ODTÜ Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü İşleyiş YönergesiUploaded byJena Collins
- Japanese TextBook CoverUploaded bybortycan
- GuidelinesUploaded byGabi Gabriel
- Management Case AsiaUploaded bybortycan
- USA Turkey ComparisonUploaded bybortycan
- USA Turkey ComparisonUploaded bybortycan
- The Mail Box With DialUploaded bybortycan
- Judging Criteria GBCUploaded bybortycan
- Mondai Kaito uUploaded byTiểu Vũ
- FM 421 - Tottenham HotspurUploaded byKartik Subramanian
- Uniqlo_business_strategy_-_SUBMISSION_date_14.05.2015..pdfUploaded bybortycan
- Marketing Article ArtUploaded bybortycan
- Kotler- The Frontiers of the Marketing Paradigm in the Third Millenium 2012Uploaded byRissarias Rissaria
- Kotler- The Frontiers of the Marketing Paradigm in the Third Millenium 2012Uploaded byRissarias Rissaria
- What is Marketing?Uploaded bybortycan
- Intention ArticleUploaded bybortycan
- Kevin Lane Keller-Brand Image JournalUploaded byMardhiyah Mardis
- Nature and ScopeUploaded byAnjali Shah
- Team Guide 2016GBCUploaded bybortycan
- Team Guide 2016GBCUploaded bybortycan
- Marketing Insights ArticleUploaded bybortycan
- Let’s Learn Japanese with Hiragana and KatakanaUploaded bybortycan
- Chap 014 The CoreUploaded bybortycan
- All ChaptersUploaded byTaleb A. Alsumain

- EViews 5 Users GuideUploaded byJosé-Manuel Martin Coronado
- tirc_80Uploaded byregreg88regreg
- EViews 8 Users Guide I.pdfUploaded byAhmad Faizun
- Analisa eviewsUploaded byMuhammad Satria Priyantama
- CorrelationUploaded byKeerthana Sahadevan
- Chapter04 McGuiganUploaded bynisah_han
- Stepwise RegressionUploaded byMichael Nguyen
- EViews 8 Multiple Breakpoint (Bai-Perron) TestingUploaded byChacao15042
- Capstone Project R Code - Hotel Room Pricing in Indian CitiesUploaded byShrey Shailesh Shah
- Power Anova1 SasUploaded byDonweriyal
- spss-part-4-kebolehpercayaan-instrumen.pptxUploaded bysal
- Econometrics finalUploaded byDanikaLi
- ForecastUploaded byYoussef El Otmani
- Answer key to Stock and Watson Chapter 16 questionsUploaded bypnunns
- endogeneity test stata 14.pdfUploaded byUNLV234
- 236185337-Solucionario-Econometria-Jeffrey-M-Wooldridge.pdfUploaded byarley320
- double kolaUploaded byKetan Jaiswal
- 20_ZA_2009Uploaded bySamith Weerasuriya
- Forecasting and VAR models - PresentationUploaded byFranz Eigner
- Metrics Guide 1Uploaded byMalik Amin
- QualitativeUploaded byMohammadAhmad
- Random Forest.pdfUploaded byParimal Shivendu
- Advanced_econometrics_Intro_CLRM.pdfUploaded byMarzieh Rostami
- 12Uploaded byShubham Tewari
- de14_drukker_gsemUploaded byDet Guillermo
- Machine Learning Mastery NotesUploaded byGauravJain
- 5regrUploaded bykhaleel6090
- Regression Arima Garch Var ModelUploaded bymanishjindal
- AutocorrelationUploaded byJenab Peteburoh
- Chapter 7Uploaded byMahesh Agarwal