I just wanted to clarify some things about leverage, studentized residuals, and Cook's distance:

  1. Does a large (in absolute value) studentized residual mean that a case is an outlier?

  2. Does a large Cook's distance mean that a case is influential for sure? Similarly, does a small Cook's distance mean that a case is not influential for sure?

  3. Can a case have a small leverage but a large (in absolute value) studentized residual?

  1. No, the fact that you have a large studentized residual does not necessarily mean that the observation is an outlier. (Although some define outlier as simply a large residual, in which case it would be by definition.)
  2. "Influential" is somewhat ambiguous. One could think of leverage as a measure of influence, or of DFbeta as a measure of influence, and neither of these will track Cook's distance perfectly. Thus, Cook's distance is not necessarily the same as influence; but I imagine that you are using them as synonymous, which may be a reasonable thing to do in some context. In that case, Cook's distance does measure influence, but that is tautological.
  3. Yes, a case can have $0$ leverage (if $x_i=\bar x$), and have any size residual.

It may help you to read my answer here: Interpreting plot.lm().

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ +1 Nice answers. @K23: In respect of 1.: while some books will state that it is an outlier, at best it's an overgeneralization, since there are a number of ways to get one or more large standardized residuals that I certainly wouldn't call outliers. It may suggest some sort of failure of model assumptions, but I think "outlier" implies particular kinds of assumption-failure that needn't apply. There's lots of ways to get relatively large residuals. $\endgroup$
    – Glen_b
    Feb 22 '15 at 0:30
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Glen_b, yeah, in simpler, more applied, books, large residual is often defined as outlier, & large d=influential. I see the argument for simplifying, but I don't really like it. It's like large, medium & small effect sizes, etc. I don't tend to find it that helpful to give people simple rules so that they won't have to think. $\endgroup$ Feb 22 '15 at 0:34
  • $\begingroup$ @gung: But people need some simple rules, just to get started! What I have observed as problematic is that many take this simple rules much more seriously than they were intended. As teachers we should be very careful with that. $\endgroup$ Jul 25 '18 at 17:48

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.