+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: R-Sq Relevance

  1. #1
    Points: 55, Level: 1
    Level completed: 10%, Points required for next Level: 45

    Posts
    3
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    R-Sq Relevance



    Hi,
    I have the following figures after creating a linear regression model using mintab:

    S = 2.65155 R-Sq = 31.8% R-Sq(adj) = 31.6%

    PRESS = 61820.5 R-Sq(pred) = 31.29%

    A few questions:
    1. Considering I am using 38 independant interval variables (and that R-Sq increases with each variable) is the R-Sq a good indicator of performance? An expected random output for this model would be approx 10%.
    2. The R-sq(pred), is this indicating that the model will perform almost as well predicting results as the R-Sq implies or is this an indication the any prediction results will only perform 31.29% as well as the original R-Sq of 31.8%.

    Thanks for your time, sorry if this is an eas question, I am new to stats.

  2. #2
    IBM Rules
    Points: 12,885, Level: 74
    Level completed: 9%, Points required for next Level: 365

    Posts
    2,507
    Thanks
    110
    Thanked 369 Times in 357 Posts

    Re: R-Sq Relevance

    There is no statistical answer to what is a good r squared value. That is a professional judgement that depends on the phenomenon in question. In cases where a wide range of factors contribute to the dependent variable getting 10 percent R squared might be better than the norm. In other cases you can end up with very high r squared values (eighty or more percent). I would look for studies in the literature that addressed this and see what their r square values are. I am curious how you would know that ten percent would be random, have you seen other studies in this area?

    When you have a lot of variables (and 38 is a huge number of variables to have in a regression) r squared is not ideal because it gets higher as the number of variables increases. You should use adjusted R squared which adjusts for this.

    I have never encountered R squared predicted before.
    "Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are more pliable." Mark Twain

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to noetsi For This Useful Post:

    arkantosno1 (08-15-2012)

  4. #3
    Points: 1,980, Level: 26
    Level completed: 80%, Points required for next Level: 20
    derksheng's Avatar
    Posts
    247
    Thanks
    49
    Thanked 34 Times in 28 Posts

    Re: R-Sq Relevance

    If you have integrated vectors in your design matrix then R^2 can get highly inflated (spurious). That is, if some of your regressors aren't "stationary" (i.e. they're not at least weak white noise processes) then R^2 is unreliable.

    We need more information on the variables you're regressing.

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to derksheng For This Useful Post:

    arkantosno1 (08-15-2012)

  6. #4
    IBM Rules
    Points: 12,885, Level: 74
    Level completed: 9%, Points required for next Level: 365

    Posts
    2,507
    Thanks
    110
    Thanked 369 Times in 357 Posts

    Re: R-Sq Relevance


    r squared also only gets at linear relationships. If there are ones better described by say a quadratic term then r squared wont pick these up.
    "Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are more pliable." Mark Twain

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts








Advertise on Talk Stats