Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Chapter 5: Answers
Task 1
A fashion student was interested in factors that predicted the salaries of catwalk models. She
collected data from 231 models. For each model she asked them their salary per day on days
when they were working (salary), their age (age), how many years they had worked as a
model (years), and then got a panel of experts from modelling agencies to rate the
attractiveness of each model as a percentage with 100% being perfectly attractive (beauty).
The data are on the CD-ROM in the file Supermodel.sav. Unfortunately, this fashion student
bought some substandard statistics text and so doesnt know how to analyse her data Can
you help her out by conducting a multiple regression to see which factor predict a models
salary? How valid is the regression model?
Model Summaryb
Change Statistics
Model
1
R
R Square
.429a
.184
Adjusted
R Square
.173
Std. Error of
the Estimate
14.57213
R Square
Change
.184
F Change
17.066
df1
3
df2
227
Sig. F Change
.000
Durbin-W
atson
2.057
ANOVAb
Model
1
Regression
Residual
Total
Sum of
Squares
10871.964
48202.790
59074.754
df
3
227
230
Mean Square
3623.988
212.347
F
17.066
Sig.
.000a
To begin with a sample size of 231, with 3 predictors seems reasonable because this would
easily detect medium to large effects (see the diagram in the Chapter).
Overall, the model accounts for 18.4% of the variance in salaries and is a significant fit of the
data (F(3, 227) = 17.07, p < .001). The adjusted R2 (.17) shows some shrinkage from the
unadjusted value (.184) indicating that the model may not generalises well. We can also use
Steins formula:
adjusted R 2 = 1 231 1 231 2 231 + 1 ( 1 0.184 )
231 3 1 231 3 2 231
= 1 [1.031]( 0.816 )
= 1 0.841
= 0.159
This also shows that the model may not cross generalise well.
Page 1
5/22/2003
Coefficientsa
Model
1
Unstandardized
Coefficients
B
Std. Error
-60.890
16.497
6.234
1.411
(Constant)
Age (Years)
Number of Years
as a Model
Attractiveness (%)
Standardized
Coefficients
Beta
Sig.
.000
.000
Collinearity Statistics
Tolerance
VIF
.942
t
-3.691
4.418
.079
12.653
-5.561
2.122
-.548
-2.621
.009
-9.743
-1.380
.082
12.157
-.196
.152
-.083
-1.289
.199
-.497
.104
.867
1.153
SE B
60.89
16.50
Age
6.23
1.41
.94**
Years as a Model
5.56
2.12
.55*
Attractiveness
0.20
0.15
.08
It seems as though salaries are significantly predicted by the age of the model. This is a
positive relationship (look at the sign of the beta), indicating that as age increases, salaries
increase too. The number of years spent as a model also seems to significantly predict
salaries, but this is a negative relationship indicating that the more years youve spent as a
model, the lower your salary. This finding seems very counter-intuitive, but well come back to
it later. Finally, the attractiveness of the model doesnt seem to predict salaries.
If we wanted to write the regression model, we could write it as:
Salary = 0 + 1Age i + 2 Experience i + 3Attractiveness i
The next part of the question asks whether this model is valid.
Casewise Diagnosticsa
Collinearity Diagnosticsa
Model
1
Dimension
1
2
3
4
Eigenvalue
3.925
.070
.004
.001
Condition
Index
1.000
7.479
30.758
63.344
(Constant)
.00
.01
.30
.69
Variance Proportions
Number of
Years as a
Age (Years)
Model
.00
.00
.00
.08
.02
.01
.98
.91
Attractiveness
(%)
.00
.02
.94
.04
Case Number
2
5
24
41
91
116
127
135
155
170
191
198
Std. Residual
2.186
4.603
2.232
2.411
2.062
3.422
2.753
4.672
3.257
2.170
3.153
3.510
Salary per
Day ()
53.72
95.34
48.87
51.03
56.83
64.79
61.32
89.98
74.86
54.57
50.66
71.32
Predicted
Value
21.8716
28.2647
16.3444
15.8861
26.7856
14.9259
21.2059
21.8946
27.4025
22.9401
4.7164
20.1729
Residual
31.8532
67.0734
32.5232
35.1390
30.0459
49.8654
40.1129
68.0854
47.4582
31.6254
45.9394
51.1478
Page 2
5/22/2003
Histogram
1.00
50
.75
40
30
Frequency
20
Std. Dev = .99
10
Mean = 0.00
N = 231.00
.50
.25
75
4.
25
4.
75
3.
25
3.
75
2.
25
2.
75
1.
25
1.
5
.7
5
.2
5
-.2
5
-.7
5
.2
-1
5
.7
-1
0.00
0.00
.50
.75
1.00
Scatterplot
80
60
3
40
2
1
20
0
-1
-2
-3
-2
-1
.25
-20
-40
-3
-2
-1
Age (Years)
60
60
40
40
20
20
-20
-40
-1.5
-1.0
-.5
0.0
.5
1.0
1.5
-20
-40
-20
-10
10
20
30
Attractiveness (%)
Residuals: there 6 cases that has a standardized residual greater than 3, and two of these
are fairly substantial (case 5 and 135). We have 5.19% of cases with standardized
residuals above 2, so thats as we expect, but 3% of cases with residuals above 2.5 (wed
expect only 1%), which indicates possible outliers.
Normality of errors: The histogram reveals a skewed distribution indicating that the
normality of errors assumption has been broken. The normal P-P plot verifies this because
the dotted line deviates considerably from the straight line (which indicates what youd get
from normally distributed errors).
Page 3
5/22/2003
Task 2
Using the Glastonbury data from this chapter (with the dummy coding in
GlastonburyDummy.sav), which you shouldve already analysed, comment on whether you
think the model is reliable and generalizable?
This question asks whether this model is valid.
Model Summaryb
Change Statistics
Model
1
R
R Square
.276a
.076
Adjusted
R Square
.053
Std. Error of
the Estimate
.68818
R Square
Change
.076
F Change
3.270
df1
3
df2
119
Sig. F
Change
.024
DurbinWatson
1.893
a. Predictors: (Constant), No Affiliation vs. Indie Kid, No Affiliation vs. Crusty, No Affiliation vs. Metaller
b. Dependent Variable: Change in Hygiene Over The Festival
Coefficientsa
Model
1
Unstandardized
Coefficients
B
Std. Error
-.554
.090
-.412
.167
.028
.160
-.410
.205
(Constant)
No Affiliation vs. Crusty
No Affiliation vs. Metaller
No Affiliation vs. Indie Kid
Standardized
Coefficients
Beta
-.232
.017
-.185
t
-6.134
-2.464
.177
-2.001
Sig.
.000
.015
.860
.048
Collinearity Statistics
Tolerance
VIF
.879
.874
.909
1.138
1.144
1.100
Casewise Diagnosticsa
Collinearity
Model
1
Dimension
1
2
3
4
Eigenvalue
1.727
1.000
1.000
.273
Condition
Index
1.000
1.314
1.314
2.515
Diagnosticsa
(Constant)
.14
.00
.00
.86
Variance Proportions
No Affiliation
No Affiliation
vs. Crusty
vs. Metaller
.08
.08
.37
.32
.07
.08
.48
.52
Case Number
31
153
202
346
479
No Affiliation
vs. Indie Kid
.05
.00
.63
.32
Std. Residual
-2.302
2.317
-2.653
-2.479
2.215
Change in
Hygiene Over
The Festival
-2.55
1.04
-2.38
-2.26
.97
Predicted
Value
-.9658
-.5543
-.5543
-.5543
-.5543
Residual
-1.5842
1.5943
-1.8257
-1.7057
1.5243
Page 4
5/22/2003
Histogram
1.00
.75
Frequency
10
.50
.25
2.
1.
1.
.7
.2
25
75
25
- .2
.2
.7
.2
.7
- .7
-1
-1
-2
-2
0.00
0.00
.75
1.00
.50
Scatterplot
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-2.0
-1.5
-1.0
-.5
0.0
.5
1.0
-1
-2
-.4
-.2
0.0
.2
.4
.6
.8
2.0
.25
1.5
1.0
.5
0.0
-.5
-1.0
-1.5
-2.0
-.4
-.2
0.0
.2
.4
.6
.8
1.5
1.0
.5
0.0
-.5
-1.0
-1.5
-2.0
-.4
-.2
0.0
.2
.4
.6
.8
1.0
Residuals: there are no cases that have a standardized residual greater than 3. We have
4.07% of cases with standardized residuals above 2, so thats as we expect, and .81% of
cases with residuals above 2.5 (and wed expect 1%), which indicates the data are
consistent with what wed expect.
Normality of errors: The histogram looks reasonably normally distributed indicating that
the normality of errors assumption has probably been met. The normal P-P plot verifies this
Page 5
5/22/2003
Page 6
5/22/2003