turn on suggestions

Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.

Showing results for

Find a Community

- Home
- /
- Analytics
- /
- Stat Procs
- /
- How to explain the regression results?

Topic Options

- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Mark Topic as New
- Mark Topic as Read
- Float this Topic for Current User
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Printer Friendly Page

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content

03-19-2012 05:24 PM

Hi to all,

I ran a linear model with proc glm and got a very weired result that I cannot explain what is going on.

I got one categorical variable in the model with 4 levels and I put it in the class statement. Normally I would expect that 3 levels except the reference level would have the estimates. But the output I got resulted in two levels of the variable with nothing estimated.

educ 0 0.0000000 B . . .

educ 1 1.1880336 B 0.99728636 1.19 0.2337

educ 2 -0.9403576 B 1.06206014 -0.89 0.3760

educ 3 0.0000000 B . . .

There's no error message in the log.

Besides, I also tried to create 3 dummy variables and replaced the categorical variable with them. Still, SAS gave no estimate for one of the 3 dummy variables.

I just wonder if there is any statistical trick in the procedure that does not match my conventional thinking. Or there might be some other things I missed or did wrong?

Mostly importantly, do I adjust for this categorical variable sufficiently given this result, since I include this covariate in the model as a confounder?

Thanks so much for the help!

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content

Posted in reply to Terry

03-19-2012 11:50 PM

I've got some ideas of what the problem might be. One level of the covariate is exactly the same as the level of another predictor in the model, that is, one level of the education was assigned to represent the education level for children<18 while the age variable also has a category for <18yr. Since they provide essentially the same information mathematically, one of them is omitted in the computation.

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content

Posted in reply to Terry

03-20-2012 07:27 AM

Bingo! Full credit for discovering what was happening.

Steve Denham