Timeline for Intrepretation of a term that is insiginficant but which when removed causes a significant increase in deviance
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 24, 2020 at 15:54 | comment | added | user265883 | Aha, yes - that makes sense. There are a small number of datapoints in the dataset which have no value for msize and so they will have been removed from the second regression. Thank you. | |
| Jun 24, 2020 at 15:49 | comment | added | Penguin_Knight | Maybe because they are not using the same samples? The df_res is 1091 with msize in it, and 1123 (instead of 1092) when it's absent. | |
| Jun 24, 2020 at 15:44 | comment | added | user265883 | Yes, I'm confused too - I've added outputs to the main question. | |
| Jun 24, 2020 at 15:44 | history | edited | user265883 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1562 characters in body
|
| Jun 24, 2020 at 15:09 | comment | added | Pohoua | Well it is odd. If I am not making a mistake, deviance is $D = 2\times (\mathcal{l}_{saturated} - \mathcal{l}_{model})$ thus the increase in deviance corresponds to $2 \times (\mathcal{l}_{bigger model} - \mathcal{l}_{smaller model})$. This corresponds to the likelihood ratio test statistic on the parameter you add to go from the smaller model to the bigger... (again maybe I'm wrong...) Would you have more details to share ? | |
| Jun 24, 2020 at 13:00 | history | asked | user265883 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |