+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: What do you do it you can't increase X by one level while holding all other X constan

  1. #1
    Fortran must die
    Points: 58,790, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    noetsi's Avatar
    Posts
    6,532
    Thanks
    692
    Thanked 915 Times in 874 Posts

    What do you do it you can't increase X by one level while holding all other X constan




    Classical regression defines the slope as the change in Y for a one unit change in X holding all other X constant (or so I believe). What happens if its impossible to hold all other X constant when you change a given X. In some cases, substantively, if you change a specific X another X has to change, one is inherently linked to the other.

    Does the slope definition change then, or is there a technique that addresses this?
    "Very few theories have been abandoned because they were found to be invalid on the basis of empirical evidence...." Spanos, 1995

  2. #2
    TS Contributor
    Points: 12,227, Level: 72
    Level completed: 45%, Points required for next Level: 223
    rogojel's Avatar
    Location
    I work in Europe, live in Hungary
    Posts
    1,470
    Thanks
    160
    Thanked 332 Times in 312 Posts

    Re: What do you do it you can't increase X by one level while holding all other X con

    hi,
    this would mean that the X-es are correlated, so the model would be flawed. You would need to handle that,e.g. by regressing X1 on X2 and using X1 and the residuals instead if x1 and x2.

    regards

  3. #3
    Devorador de queso
    Points: 95,819, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Awards:
    Posting AwardCommunity AwardDiscussion EnderFrequent Poster
    Dason's Avatar
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    12,935
    Thanks
    307
    Thanked 2,629 Times in 2,245 Posts

    Re: What do you do it you can't increase X by one level while holding all other X con

    I think it wouldn't be appropriate to say that the model is flawed because the X's are correlated. Is any model with both X and X^2 in it automatically flawed?
    I don't have emotions and sometimes that makes me very sad.

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Dason For This Useful Post:

    rogojel (03-22-2017)

  5. #4
    TS Contributor
    Points: 12,227, Level: 72
    Level completed: 45%, Points required for next Level: 223
    rogojel's Avatar
    Location
    I work in Europe, live in Hungary
    Posts
    1,470
    Thanks
    160
    Thanked 332 Times in 312 Posts

    Re: What do you do it you can't increase X by one level while holding all other X con

    Yepp, you are right!
    This is an interesting question actually, why are we bothered by collinearity but not by x, x^2 type of models?

  6. #5
    Omega Contributor
    Points: 38,374, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    hlsmith's Avatar
    Location
    Not Ames, IA
    Posts
    6,998
    Thanks
    398
    Thanked 1,186 Times in 1,147 Posts

    Re: What do you do it you can't increase X by one level while holding all other X con

    Well they could be mediated noetsi. Do you have an example for this question, so we can narrow down the responses? Is it possibly an output of both the predictor and outcome?
    Stop cowardice, ban guns!

  7. #6
    TS Contributor
    Points: 12,227, Level: 72
    Level completed: 45%, Points required for next Level: 223
    rogojel's Avatar
    Location
    I work in Europe, live in Hungary
    Posts
    1,470
    Thanks
    160
    Thanked 332 Times in 312 Posts

    Re: What do you do it you can't increase X by one level while holding all other X con

    Quote Originally Posted by Dason View Post
    I think it wouldn't be appropriate to say that the model is flawed because the X's are correlated. Is any model with both X and X^2 in it automatically flawed?
    hi Dason,
    I think I have an answer to this: if I have a model where I have the terms x and F(x) then the model also captures this dependency - if I input a value for x, F(x) will automatically have the right value and there is no way I can specify an inconsistent pair (x, F(x))

    If I have a regression model that contains x1 and x2 which are correlated, this relationahip is not part of the model. If I input a new value for x1 I am still free to input any other value for x2, however unrealistic the combination(x1,x2). So, in this sense, the model would be flawed. Does this make sense?

  8. #7
    Points: 1,741, Level: 24
    Level completed: 41%, Points required for next Level: 59

    Posts
    230
    Thanks
    37
    Thanked 68 Times in 59 Posts

    Re: What do you do it you can't increase X by one level while holding all other X con

    Quote Originally Posted by rogojel View Post
    Yepp, you are right!
    This is an interesting question actually, why are we bothered by collinearity but not by x, x^2 type of models?
    Collinearity isn't really something to be bothered by unless you're using the model in a way that's impacted by collinearity, and even then, there are some relatively easy fixes (but not always). If we're going to use the model for predictive purposes, multicollinearity is very rarely an issue in comparison to trying to make inferences on the betas, for example.

    To the OP: hlsmith got to it before I could. Another easy example (aside from square, cube,...) is a mediator/interaction, but it's not terribly important since we need to do a little algebra to interpret that slope at a fixed value of one of the variables (remember an interaction of X1*X2 can be rewritten as X3 if you want to see it more clearly).

    E(Y) = b0 + b1x1 + b2x2 +b3x1*x2
    Where x1 is some continuous variable and x2 is gender (1 if female, let's say; 0 for male).
    The slope relating Y to X1 for males can be seen by plugging 0 in for x2. E(Y) = b0 + b1x1 + b2(0) + b3x1*(0) = b0 + b1x1...so the slope of Y with X1 is b1, (you can think of it like saying, holding x2 fixed at 0 (gender as a male))
    The slope relating Y to X1 for females can be seen the same way but plugging in 1 for X2.... E(Y)= b0 + b1x1 + b2(1) + b3x1*(1) = b0 + b1x1 + b2 +b3x1 = (b0+b2) + (b1+b3)x1...so we can see the slope of y with x1 for females is b1+b3 holding gender (or anything else in our model, if it were bigger) fixed.
    Last edited by ondansetron; 03-22-2017 at 06:24 PM.

  9. #8
    Points: 1,741, Level: 24
    Level completed: 41%, Points required for next Level: 59

    Posts
    230
    Thanks
    37
    Thanked 68 Times in 59 Posts

    Re: What do you do it you can't increase X by one level while holding all other X con


    Quote Originally Posted by rogojel View Post
    hi Dason,
    I think I have an answer to this: if I have a model where I have the terms x and F(x) then the model also captures this dependency - if I input a value for x, F(x) will automatically have the right value and there is no way I can specify an inconsistent pair (x, F(x))

    If I have a regression model that contains x1 and x2 which are correlated, this relationahip is not part of the model. If I input a new value for x1 I am still free to input any other value for x2, however unrealistic the combination(x1,x2). So, in this sense, the model would be flawed. Does this make sense?
    Putting in a value for x1 but then something other than x1-squared for an x1*x1 term doesn't follow logical usage of the model.This kind of seems more like an end-user error rather than a flaw within the model. Someone using a perfect model but interpreting the slope as a correlation doesn't bring any fault on the model, it just indicates fault on the user.

+ 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