LISTSERV at the University of Georgia
Menubar Imagemap
Home Browse Manage Request Manuals Register
Previous messageNext messagePrevious in topicNext in topicPrevious by same authorNext by same authorPrevious page (July 2004)Back to main SPSSX-L pageJoin or leave SPSSX-L (or change settings)ReplyPost a new messageSearchProportional fontNon-proportional font
Date:   Thu, 8 Jul 2004 23:04:12 +0200
Reply-To:   Qinghai Huang <>
Sender:   "SPSSX(r) Discussion" <SPSSX-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
From:   Qinghai Huang <>
Subject:   Re: dummy variable coding in regression
In-Reply-To:   <>
Content-Type:   text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"


Thanks for your suggestions. I will pay attention to the representativeness issue and try to find reasonable control variables.


>It's hard to say from the limited description, but my first guess is that >you will not get a statistically significant coefficient for a group with >only 11 cases. If the small groups are significantly different, make sure >it's group membership that is really driving the difference. For instance, >if your groups are contract workers, production workers, managers, and >executives and you want to postulate that group membership has an impact of >X on your dependent variable, then you should take at least one of these >two measures to control for possible bias. >1) add variables for the other things that also generally correlate with >group membership (i.e., age, tenure, education level, etc) >or >2) make sure that your subgroups are truly representative of the subgroup >population on these measures (i.e., mean age of executives in Sweden is 47 >and mean age of my 11 executives in the sample is 47, mean tenure of >executives in Sweden is 18 and mean tenure of my 11 executives in the >sample is 47, etc.) > >As you can probably tell, the likelihood that test 2 will show >representative subgroups declines with sample size. So you are probably >better off constructing your model with the additional control variables. >That will make it less likely that you come to a spurious conclusion like >executives are more likely to be hospitalized that production workers >(because in reality older people are more likely to be hospitalized than >younger, and controlling for age, executives are less likely to be >hospitalized) [just a guess] > >Philip Moore >Market Research Manager >(804) 747-0422 x4831 >(804) 935-4549 FAX > >The information in this email is extremely confidential. It is intended >solely for the addressee. Access to this email by anyone else is >unauthorized. Please do not copy or disseminate any portion of this email. > > > > Qinghai Huang > <huangqh@psycholo >> To > Sent by: SPSSX-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU > "SPSSX(r) cc > Discussion" > <SPSSX-L@LISTSERV Subject > .UGA.EDU> Re: dummy variable coding in > regression > > 07/08/2004 02:54 > PM > > > Please respond to > Qinghai Huang > <huangqh@psycholo >> > > > > > > >Thanks very much for your message. Talking about the sample size, I >have n= 360, nine categories will be used. But sizes of the 9 >categories range from 70 to 11. The group with the largest size will >be used as reference group. Is there any bias with the uneven sample >sizes across the groups? > >Thanks, >Qinghai > >>and from a purely pragmatic and technical point of view... > > >>The significance of the rest of your dummy variables will be affected by >>the size and difference of your choice of intercept set. If you had four >>categories like contract workers, production-line workers, managers, and >>executives where contract workers were significantly different than the >>other three categories, then using contract workers as the intercept set >>will produce statistically significant coefficients for all three of your >>dummies. If, on the other hand, you choose production-line workers as the >>intercept and they are not significantly different than managers, then >only >>two of your dummies (contract workers, and executives) will have >>significant coefficients. >> >>Philip Moore >>Market Research Manager >>(804) 747-0422 x4831 >>(804) 935-4549 FAX > >

Back to: Top of message | Previous page | Main SPSSX-L page