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 (November 2010)Back to main SPSSX-L pageJoin or leave SPSSX-L (or change settings)ReplyPost a new messageSearchProportional fontNon-proportional font
Date:   Mon, 29 Nov 2010 23:21:21 -0800
Reply-To:   JR <jessica.roehner@s2003.tu-chemnitz.de>
Sender:   "SPSSX(r) Discussion" <SPSSX-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
From:   JR <jessica.roehner@s2003.tu-chemnitz.de>
Subject:   Re: logistic regression
In-Reply-To:   <4CF3AF3E.9070407@DrKendall.org>
Content-Type:   text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Hello,

I did not include interactions. Would it be better to include them? The syntax is correct, I think. The predictors correlate with each other. Could this be the problem? I have read that it is only a problem, if the correlation is about .80?

In the models, including only one or two predictors (each significant), the Hosmer-Lemshow Test is also significant, indicating a bad model fit? I dont know, what to do now. Would a stepwise logistic regression be better? Should I exclude predictors?

Hope, you can help me!

Best wishes, JR -- View this message in context: http://spssx-discussion.1045642.n5.nabble.com/logistic-regression-tp3284334p3285704.html 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


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