Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 10:03:06 -0400
Reply-To: R B <email@example.com>
Sender: "SPSSX(r) Discussion" <SPSSX-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
From: R B <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: Chow test to compare regression on two groups
You've clearly sparked a lot of interest from several people, and my guess
is, you'll continue receive useful commentary. Let me just state
unequivocally that inclusion/exclusion of a main effect should NOT be
determined based on whether a two-way interaction is statistically
significant. In general, one should include all lower level effects when
testing for upper level effects in regression modeling. There are certainly
cases where exclusion of a main effect is warranted (e.g., multivariate
analysis in the hierarchical modeling world), but your situation does not
appear to be one of them.
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 4:29 PM, Jose Rocha <
> Yes, I tried to include "sex" but it changed the results, and none
> coping*sex was significative (.05). I am out of office, tomorrow I will
> the table of regression. That suggestion is great!
> It was the sex*coping6 that was significant. I guess you gave the answer
> about the reason the inclusion of "sex" alone gets less significant values.
> How can I include bonferroni correction?
> R B:
> Considering the type of coping variables, they are not binomial, they are
> continuous. And each subject has values for all 6 coping styles. Those
> results came from a specific scale/sub-scale scores.
> Thanks again for your nice comments and suggestions. I will follow this
> discussion with the table of regression coefficients.
> View this message in context:
> Sent from the SPSSX Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> To manage your subscription to SPSSX-L, send a message to
> LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU (not to SPSSX-L), with no body text except the
> command. To leave the list, send the command
> SIGNOFF SPSSX-L
> For a list of commands to manage subscriptions, send the command
> INFO REFCARD