Dear list: A continuation of the evacuation question. I went ahead and
looked at the time for evacuation (started to evacuate to exited onto the street). The correlations between floor started and time was .75 for one building and .77 for the other building. Next I did a regression analysis allowing for linear and quadratic. In both instances the linear and quadratic functions were significant. Next I allowed for a cubic function and this is what happened. For building 1 Linear was significant, quadratic and cubic were not significant. For building 2 linear was not significant, but quadratic and cubic were significant. My question is how would I lose significance for the quadratic when the cubic was allowed to enter for building 1. Also why would I lose significance for linear (given the very large zero-order correlation-my expectation was that the linear would stay in) for building 2 while picking up the cubic (besides the quadratic). Befuddled. TIA. P.S. A colleague recommended a Loess fitting curve. Does anyone have any thoughts about using the Loess? martin sherman |
Did you center the time variable before doing the analyses?
Paul ________________________________ From: SPSSX(r) Discussion on behalf of Martin Sherman Sent: Sun 6/25/2006 11:02 AM To: [hidden email] Subject: Follow up to stat question Dear list: A continuation of the evacuation question. I went ahead and looked at the time for evacuation (started to evacuate to exited onto the street). The correlations between floor started and time was .75 for one building and .77 for the other building. Next I did a regression analysis allowing for linear and quadratic. In both instances the linear and quadratic functions were significant. Next I allowed for a cubic function and this is what happened. For building 1 Linear was significant, quadratic and cubic were not significant. For building 2 linear was not significant, but quadratic and cubic were significant. My question is how would I lose significance for the quadratic when the cubic was allowed to enter for building 1. Also why would I lose significance for linear (given the very large zero-order correlation-my expectation was that the linear would stay in) for building 2 while picking up the cubic (besides the quadratic). Befuddled. TIA. P.S. A colleague recommended a Loess fitting curve. Does anyone have any thoughts about using the Loess? martin sherman |
In reply to this post by msherman
> My question is how would I lose significance for the quadratic when the
> cubic was allowed to enter for building 1. Also why would I lose > significance for linear (given the very large zero-order correlation-my > expectation was that the linear would stay in) for building 2 while > picking up the cubic (besides the quadratic). Befuddled. TIA. Did you test for multi-collinearity? The linear, quadratic and cubic evacuation time should be highly intercorrelated. |
Correlated, but not necessarily LINEARLY correlated.
Hector -----Mensaje original----- De: SPSSX(r) Discussion [mailto:[hidden email]] En nombre de Marc Halbrügge Enviado el: Sunday, June 25, 2006 3:10 PM Para: [hidden email] Asunto: Re: Follow up to stat question > My question is how would I lose significance for the quadratic when the > cubic was allowed to enter for building 1. Also why would I lose > significance for linear (given the very large zero-order correlation-my > expectation was that the linear would stay in) for building 2 while > picking up the cubic (besides the quadratic). Befuddled. TIA. Did you test for multi-collinearity? The linear, quadratic and cubic evacuation time should be highly intercorrelated. |
In reply to this post by Swank, Paul R
It's too much.
Delete me on your list. Thanks. J. Schoeters |
In reply to this post by msherman
Kind of a summary; these are points that have been made
At 12:02 PM 6/25/2006, Martin Sherman wrote: >A continuation of the evacuation question. I went ahead and looked at >the time for evacuation (started to evacuate to exited onto the >street). The correlations between floor started and time was .75 for >one building and .77 for the other building. It's a good idea to take a naive look. In this case, what the correlation means is, it takes longer to walk down more stairs. It's fine to look at the correlation, but in this case, I don't think it can be regarded as telling you much you didn't know. >Next I did a regression analysis allowing for linear and quadratic. In >both instances the linear and quadratic functions were significant. >Next I allowed for a cubic function and this is what happened. For >building 1 Linear was significant, quadratic and cubic were not >significant. For building 2 linear was not significant, but quadratic >and cubic were significant. My question is how would I lose >significance for the quadratic when the cubic was allowed to enter for >building 1. Also why would I lose significance for linear (given the >very large zero-order correlation-my expectation was that the linear >would stay in) for building 2 while >picking up the cubic (besides the quadratic). Befuddled. TIA. You should probably post the exact model you fit, and means and SDs of the dependent and independent variables. To say again what others have said: The linear, quadratic, and cubic functions of a variable are VERY HIGHLY CORRELATED under very ordinary conditions. Having all values positive (as yours are) is enough. The larger the mean is relative to the SD, the worse. Look at the correlation matrix of the predictors - linear, quadratic, and cubic - that you used. As Paul Swank said, you can solve the correlation between linear and quadratic terms by centering the independent variable. Choosing a convenient point near the middle will do; it needn't be the exact mean. In your case, if time to evacuate is the dependent and starting floor the independent, I'd keep the linear term uncentered, so its coefficient has the natural meaning, and the constant has a reasonable interpretation: mean time to start evacuation. But for 75 or so floors to evacuate, I'd use, say, (Floor-40)**2 as the quadratic term. You can interpret this as taking time per floor from the 40th floor as the norm, and the quadratic term as the systematic change in time per floor above and below the 40th. Centering won't remove the correlation between linear and cubic terms. As a cubic term, you might try subtracting the linear component: (Floor-40)**3 - (Floor-40) Notice that, here, I'm centering both the linear and the cubic components of the variable. It make its shape, if plot it, much more meaningful. Finally, it's a common rule, in fitting polynomials, that if any term is included, all lower terms must also be included. Keep the linear term, whether it loses 'significance' or not. But I think, if you transform like this, that the linear term will stay dominant. Has the question of data censoring been settled? One would think this involved censored data, since there's no observation for people who failed to make it out of the buildings. However, as I understand it, the pattern was peculiar: there was enough time to evacuate, and little or no cutoff for people who were lost because the building collapsed before they completed evacuation. The losses were people above the points of impact, who were cut off from evacuation altogether, and need to be excluded from this model. A sad business, this. It is worth knowing about, though. |
In reply to this post by Boonen Eliane
Delete me on your list.
Thanks. J. Lindqvist |
Hi Judit,
JL> Delete me on your list. When you subscribed to the list, you received a message (copied below) with instructions on how to unsubscribe yourself (we, users, CAN'T do that for you, if we could start unsubscribing each other this would be chaos). The message also instructed you to keep it, I see you didn't. HTH, Marta ************************************************************************ Copy of the wellcome message (see paragraph #4 for instructions on how to unsubscribe): Your subscription to the SPSSX-L list (SPSSX(r) Discussion) has been accepted. Please save this message for future reference, especially if this is the first time you are subscribing to an electronic mailing list. If you ever need to leave the list, you will find the necessary instructions below. Perhaps more importantly, saving a copy of this message (and of all future subscription notices from other mailing lists) in a special mail folder will give you instant access to the list of mailing lists that you are subscribed to. This may prove very useful the next time you go on vacation and need to leave the lists temporarily so as not to fill up your mailbox while you are away! You should also save the "welcome messages" from the list owners that you will occasionally receive after subscribing to a new list. To send a message to all the people currently subscribed to the list, just send mail to [hidden email]. This is called "sending mail to the list," because you send mail to a single address and LISTSERV makes copies for all the people who have subscribed. This address ([hidden email]) is also called the "list address." You must never send a command to that address, as it would be distributed to all the people who have subscribed. All commands must be sent to the "LISTSERV *server* address," [hidden email]. You may leave the list at any time by sending a "SIGNOFF SPSSX-L" command to [hidden email]. Contributions sent to this list are automatically archived. You can get a list of the available archive files by sending an "INDEX SPSSX-L" command to [hidden email]. You can then order these files with a "GET SPSSX-L LOGxxxx" command, or using LISTSERV's database search facilities. Send an "INFO DATABASE" command for more information on the latter. This list is available in digest form. If you wish to receive the digested version of the postings, just issue a SET SPSSX-L DIGEST command. More information on LISTSERV commands can be found in the LISTSERV reference card, which you can retrieve by sending an "INFO REFCARD" command to [hidden email]. |
Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |