I did regression analysis.

It's about incoming calls and amount of orders.

I got a result like this.



lm(formula = 1/sqrt(ie) ~ ia + id)


   Min         1Q     Median         3Q        Max 

-0.0075193 -0.0019483 0.0002774 0.0018405 0.0093027


          Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)    

(Intercept) 3.364e-02 4.348e-04 77.374 < 2e-16 ***

ia -6.968e-05 1.308e-05 -5.326 1.40e-07 ***

id -7.322e-06 1.379e-06 -5.311 1.51e-07 ***

Signif. codes: 0 ‘’ 0.001 ‘’ 0.01 ‘’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1

Residual standard error: 0.002648 on 629 degrees of freedom

Multiple R-squared: 0.08148, Adjusted R-squared: 0.07856

F-statistic: 27.9 on 2 and 629 DF, p-value: 2.462e-12

The model was ok. But verifying the assumption about regression analysis, I got a problem about independence assumption.

When I did D-W test, I got this result


lag Autocorrelation D-W Statistic p-value

1 0.5997129 0.7925516 0

Alternative hypothesis: rho != 0

Yes, it doesn't satisfy the assumption.

But the graph from the plot looks ok.

enter image description here enter image description here enter image description here enter image description here

Was my interpreting wrong? what should I do?

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ You can't judge whether a model is 'good' based on output alone. What kind of data is this? Why are you using an inverse-square-root transformation? Also, using hypothesis testing to check multiple assumptions is bound to result in false positives. Is there reason to assume auto-correlation between these observations; Are they not independent? Lastly, your model explains 8.1% of the variance in your response variable. Is this considered good in your field? $\endgroup$ – Frans Rodenburg Aug 3 '18 at 9:37
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ indent all your output 4 spaces (select a block of output, click the code tool at the top of the edit window) $\endgroup$ – Glen_b Aug 3 '18 at 9:50
  • $\begingroup$ @FransRodenburg As I explained at the top of this question, these data is about incoming calls and amount of orders. y is inbound calls and x is amount of orders. The reason I used inverse-square-root transformation is I found that this model is heteroscedasticity. So I transformed y. They are independent. Cause the method getting this values are not related. So I can say it's independent. I am also guess that there is auto-corelation, but I don't think they have. Of course we can't say 8.1% of explains are good model. But I just want to get the model which doesn't have any problem. $\endgroup$ – Doyeong Park Aug 6 '18 at 9:07
  • $\begingroup$ Why not the other way around? Are you interested in how orders cause calls or visa versa? Since these are both counts, I don't think you should transform you response. Instead, you can model these counts with a Poisson or negative binomial GLM. $\endgroup$ – Frans Rodenburg Aug 6 '18 at 9:31

Your Answer

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

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.