Date:         Thu, 25 Aug 2011 12:16:50 -0700
Reply-To:     SR Millis <srmillis@yahoo.com>
Sender:       "SPSSX(r) Discussion" <SPSSX-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
From:         SR Millis <srmillis@yahoo.com>
Subject:      Re: wilk's lamda
In-Reply-To:  <BLU143-W312EAE8F93110CB88C68D97100@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;

Why didn't you use logistic regression instead of DFA?  Logistic regression has fewer restrictive assumptions than DFA---and the results are much 
easier to interpret.

~~~~~~~~~~~

Scott R Millis, PhD, ABPP, CStat, PStatŪ
Professor
Wayne State University School of Medicine

Email:  aa3379@wayne.edu
Email:  srmillis@yahoo.com
Tel: 313-993-8085


________________________________




> Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 23:56:44 -0700
> From: vardhan.choubey@gmail.com
> Subject: wilk's lamda
> To: SPSSX-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
> 
> My wilk's lamda score for discriminant analysis is very high i.e. .851. now
> there are 2 predictors out of six significant. How should i go for
> analysis.Can i use them in indicating differences in groups. If my null
> hypothesis that group do no differ would be rejected.What are scores of
> lamda at which hypothesis is rejected.
> [snip]
[text/html]