1
$\begingroup$

On Wikipedia one can read:

In probability theory and statistics, partial correlation measures the degree of association between two random variables, with the effect of a set of controlling random variables removed.

Does anyone know of the existence of something like the partial skewness (kurtosis), i.e. a measure of the degree of skewness (kurtosis) of a random variable, with the effect of a series of controlling random variables removed?

| cite | improve this question | |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Well, you could look at the skewness (kurtosis) of the residuals of a regression model controlling for those variables. $\endgroup$ – kjetil b halvorsen Apr 29 '19 at 11:13
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Well, I actually did that. I used the formulas for $G_1$ and $G_2$ as given on Wikipedia under the articles entitled Skewness and Kurtosis. However, with residual scores, the number of degrees of freedom is different than with raw scores. Therefore, I wonder if I should replace $n$ with $n-k$, where $n$ is equal to the number of observations and $k$ is equal to the number of covariates. $\endgroup$ – Ad van der Ven Apr 29 '19 at 13:26
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, that could be a good idea, that you should investigate. $\endgroup$ – kjetil b halvorsen Apr 29 '19 at 13:28
  • $\begingroup$ I've worked it out and you'll hear from me tomorrow. $\endgroup$ – Ad van der Ven Apr 29 '19 at 14:19
  • $\begingroup$ Now the partial correlation between say two variables $X$ and $Y$ with partialling out the effect of two other independent variables say $U$ and $V$ is equal to the correlation calculated on the residual scores $E_X$ and $E_Y$ associated with $X$ and $Y$. No account is taken of the number of degrees of freedom of the variables $E_X$ and $E_Y$. If we follow the same approach, i.e. not taking into account the reduction in degrees of freedom, then it is sufficient if we simply apply the formulas for $G_1$ and $G_2$ to the residual scores. The question remains whether that would be justified. $\endgroup$ – Ad van der Ven Apr 30 '19 at 9:06
1
$\begingroup$

I suppose you're interested in the skewness of the residuals $\epsilon$ in the population regression $Y = \alpha + \beta X + \epsilon$, rather than the skewness of the residuals $E$ in the sample regression $Y = a + bX + E$. The third moment of $\epsilon$ can be estimated with equation (6) of Kakwani (1965)(https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/1909801.pdf). I didn't check the proof of this article. Denote this estimate with $K_3$. Next, the population variance of $\epsilon$ can be estimated with the mean square error ($MSE$) of the sample regression. A method of moments estimate for the skewness would then be $K_3 / MSE^{3/2}$. The $MSE$ would indeed use $df_{error}$ rather than $n-1$, but the correction in $K_3$ is more elaborate.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Do I understand it correctly that according to Kakwani (1965) (jstor.org/stable/pdf/1909801.pdf) an unbiased estimator for the third central moment is $SSE/(n-k)$, where $k$ is equal to the number of covariates and $SSE$ is the sum of squared errors? $\endgroup$ – Ad van der Ven May 1 '19 at 9:01
  • $\begingroup$ No. You would use inner part of the left hand side of equation (6) of Kakwani. If the sample size is $N$, and the residual values in the sample are $E_1, ..., E_N$, then the suggested estimate for the expectation of ${\epsilon}^3$ would be $K_3 = {1\over{N-k}} \sum_iE_i^3 $, where $k = 3A - 3B + C$, as defined in the article. $\endgroup$ – Jules Ellis May 1 '19 at 21:57

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.