Date:         Tue, 30 Nov 2010 11:18:08 -0800
Reply-To:     Bruce Weaver <bruce.weaver@hotmail.com>
Sender:       "SPSSX(r) Discussion" <SPSSX-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
From:         Bruce Weaver <bruce.weaver@hotmail.com>
Subject:      Re: logistic regression
In-Reply-To:  <1291101681142-3285704.post@n5.nabble.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

JR wrote:
>
> 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
>

It's still not at all clear to me what question or questions you're trying
to answer with your analysis.  Is there one?  Or are you on a fishing
expedition?

Stepwise selection is almost always unwise.

    http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/stat/stepwise.html

HTH.


-----
--
Bruce Weaver
bweaver@lakeheadu.ca
http://sites.google.com/a/lakeheadu.ca/bweaver/

"When all else fails, RTFM."

NOTE: My Hotmail account is not monitored regularly.
To send me an e-mail, please use the address shown above.

--
View this message in context: http://spssx-discussion.1045642.n5.nabble.com/logistic-regression-tp3284334p3286590.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