A response $y$ has been measured using 25 electronic devices.

For 8 of them, the response was heavily flawed. It was usually equal to a third of the response measured from the other devices.

So, I removed them and did my main analysis. I then thought, could I use the data from the other 8 responses (i.e., the covariates), and use them to predict new data, and then I would take a third of that data, and compare with the responses from the 8 devices I actually got?

If that's a good fit, then that would seem to confirm the hypothesis that the 8 devices give responses equal to a third of the "actual" response (assuming our model is correct)?

Is this a good idea?


In order to find a sensible answer to your question, "is it a good idea?", I would want to know what we are talking about. Imagine your $y$ is the result of function that is carried out, defined by a number of characteristics. The answer to "what is $y$?", is therefore not only defined by the attribute it is supposed to represent, but also by a number of characteristics describing the context:

  • what object(s) are the measurements taken from? E.g. water samples, some rat's brain, some people in a company's customers panel, a piece of aluminum foil put in a microwave that is running at 700W.
  • what instruments were used?
  • when were the measurements taken?
  • given the time of measurement, should the measurements have the same result and why?
  • who was pushing the buttons?
  • etc.

If 8 of the measurements show different outcomes (bias?), in a consistent pattern, I would say that your measurement theory is incomplete or incorrect.

It's generally not a good idea to assume that any model is correct. Remember, it's a model!


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.