Given below is the Microsoft® Excel output from regressing the monthly income ($) of 40-year-old South African men on number of years spent on education and number of years of job experience, using a data set of 2,000 randomly chosen 40-year-old South African men in the labour market. State the estimated multiple regression equation.

Question

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

To interpret the regression output, we need to examine the statistics that quantify how much of the variation in the dependent variable (monthly income) is explained by the model.
Option 1: 'Approximately 13.7% of the variation in the monthly income is explained by the regression model.' This matches the R-squared value shown as 0.13665 in the summary output, which indicates that about 13.7% of the variance in income is explained by the predictors (years of education and years of job experience). The approximation aligns with common rounding.
Option 2: 'Approximately 36.97% of the variation in the monthly income is explained by the regression model.' Here, 36.97% would correspond to R-squared near 0.3697. However, the printed R-squared value in the table is 0.13665, not 0.3697, so this statement overstates the variance explained by the model and conflates the concept with the reported Multiple R value.
Option 3: 'Approximately 36.97% of the monthly income is explained by the regression model.' This also misreads the statistics. Percent variation explained is tied to R-squared, not the raw scatter of income values. The correct R-squared value is substantially lower (around 13.7%), so this option is not consistent with the output.
Option 4: 'Approximately 13.7% of the monthly income is explained by the regression model.' Like Option 1, this uses the same correct interpretation as the 13.7% figure derived from R-squared. The wording duplicates Option 1, which is acceptable if it reflects the same numerical interpretation, though redundancy may be present.
Collectively, the key point is distinguishing between the multiple R and the R-squared statistic: Multiple R (the correlation between observed and predicted values) would be about 0.36967 (roughly 36.97%), whereas R-squared (the proportion of variance explained) is about 0.13665 (roughly 13.7%). The regression model’s explanatory power, as captured by R-squared, is the 13.7% figure, not 36.97%.
Thus, the options that align with the output’s R-squared interpretation are those stating approximately 13.7% of the variation in monthly income is explained by the regression model, whereas the 36.97% figures reflect a different statistic (Multiple R) and do not represent the variance explained by the model.

类似问题

Below are the results of an association study conducted by Saha, Morris and Kang (2019):Adjusted R2 = 0.689 Which of the following is incorrect?

Question8 Including irrelevant regressors in multiple regression typically: Select one alternative: a) Increases variance of estimates b) Biases coefficients c) Reduces variance of estimates d) Leaves [math] unchanged ResetMaximum marks: 0.5 Flag question undefined

In the multiple regression model, [math: yi=β1+β2xi+β3zi+ui]y_i=\beta _1+\beta _2x_i +\beta _3z_i+u_i, which of the following leads to improved precision on the estimates [math: β^2]\hatβ_2, (that is, smaller [math: se(β^2|x,z)]se(\hat{\beta}_2|x,\,z)?[Fill in the blank]

What is the consequence of including irrelevant variables (those that have no direct effect on the dependent variable) in your regression model?[Fill in the blank]

Question at position 19 Cause-and-Effect Models can have multiple independent variables.TrueFalse

更多留学生实用工具

智能学习助手

风格化写作助手

论文查重助手

文献引用助手

课堂转译助手

课堂笔记助手

Quiz搜索助手

学校历年真题

智能刷题助手

智能匹配练习

希望你的学习变得更简单