OLS=lm(WP.A.PER~WP.PG.AST+ WP.DefensePerformance+ WT.FI.W+ WT.BS.TP.Age+ WT.NBAExperience.Mean+ WT.TimeCleanOrder.SD+ WT.PerGame.GamesStarted.SD+ WT.BS.TS.AST+ WP.NBA.1stYear+ WP.PG.PF+ WP.PG.G+ BP.Height.Cm+ BP.Weight.Kg+ WP.Age, data=Sdata)
#VIF>5: WP.PG.PTS+ WP.PG.MP+
#print_table(OLS)
#tab_model(OLS)
GLM_summary(OLS)##
## General Linear Model (OLS Regression)
##
## Model Fit:
## F(14, 527) = 27.97, p = 8e-55 ***
## R² = 0.42627 (Adjusted R² = 0.41103)
##
## Unstandardized Coefficients:
## Outcome Variable: WP.A.PER
## N = 542 (168 missing cases deleted)
## ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
## b S.E. t p [95% CI of b] VIF
## ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
## (Intercept) 0.000 (0.034) 0.012 .990 [-0.067, 0.068]
## WP.PG.AST 0.275 (0.048) 5.753 <.001 *** [ 0.181, 0.369] 2.091
## WP.DefensePerformance 0.527 (0.059) 8.885 <.001 *** [ 0.411, 0.644] 3.134
## WT.FI.W 0.083 (0.054) 1.541 .124 [-0.023, 0.188] 2.552
## WT.BS.TP.Age -0.063 (0.054) -1.164 .245 [-0.170, 0.044] 2.596
## WT.NBAExperience.Mean -0.023 (0.046) -0.508 .612 [-0.114, 0.067] 2.072
## WT.TimeCleanOrder.SD 0.033 (0.042) 0.799 .425 [-0.048, 0.115] 1.682
## WT.PerGame.GamesStarted.SD -0.062 (0.045) -1.379 .169 [-0.149, 0.026] 1.578
## WT.BS.TS.AST 0.002 (0.040) 0.057 .955 [-0.076, 0.081] 1.435
## WP.NBA.1stYear -0.022 (0.040) -0.545 .586 [-0.099, 0.056] 1.244
## WP.PG.PF -0.198 (0.051) -3.848 <.001 *** [-0.299, -0.097] 2.359
## WP.PG.G 0.119 (0.041) 2.879 .004 ** [ 0.038, 0.201] 1.522
## BP.Height.Cm -0.009 (0.064) -0.132 .895 [-0.135, 0.118] 3.696
## BP.Weight.Kg 0.121 (0.062) 1.963 .050 . [-0.000, 0.243] 3.273
## WP.Age -0.034 (0.038) -0.906 .365 [-0.109, 0.040] 1.211
## ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
##
## Standardized Coefficients (β):
## Outcome Variable: WP.A.PER
## N = 542 (168 missing cases deleted)
## ───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
## β S.E. t p [95% CI of β] r(partial) r(part)
## ───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
## WP.PG.AST 0.274 (0.048) 5.753 <.001 *** [ 0.181, 0.368] 0.243 0.190
## WP.DefensePerformance 0.519 (0.058) 8.885 <.001 *** [ 0.404, 0.634] 0.361 0.293
## WT.FI.W 0.081 (0.053) 1.541 .124 [-0.022, 0.185] 0.067 0.051
## WT.BS.TP.Age -0.062 (0.053) -1.164 .245 [-0.166, 0.043] -0.051 -0.038
## WT.NBAExperience.Mean -0.024 (0.047) -0.508 .612 [-0.117, 0.069] -0.022 -0.017
## WT.TimeCleanOrder.SD 0.034 (0.043) 0.799 .425 [-0.050, 0.118] 0.035 0.026
## WT.PerGame.GamesStarted.SD -0.057 (0.041) -1.379 .169 [-0.139, 0.024] -0.060 -0.045
## WT.BS.TS.AST 0.002 (0.040) 0.057 .955 [-0.075, 0.080] 0.002 0.002
## WP.NBA.1stYear -0.020 (0.037) -0.545 .586 [-0.092, 0.052] -0.024 -0.018
## WP.PG.PF -0.195 (0.051) -3.848 <.001 *** [-0.295, -0.095] -0.165 -0.127
## WP.PG.G 0.117 (0.041) 2.879 .004 ** [ 0.037, 0.197] 0.124 0.095
## BP.Height.Cm -0.008 (0.063) -0.132 .895 [-0.133, 0.116] -0.006 -0.004
## BP.Weight.Kg 0.117 (0.060) 1.963 .050 . [-0.000, 0.234] 0.085 0.065
## WP.Age -0.033 (0.036) -0.906 .365 [-0.104, 0.038] -0.039 -0.030
## ───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
#OLS=lm(WP.A.PER~WT.NBAExperience.Mean+ WT.TimeCleanOrder.SD+ WT.PerGame.GamesStarted.SD+ WP.NBA.1stYear+ BP.Height.Cm+ BP.Weight.Kg+ WP.Age, data=Sdata)
#OLS=lm(WP.A.PER~WP.PG.PTS+WT.NBAExperience.Mean+ WT.TimeCleanOrder.SD+ WT.PerGame.GamesStarted.SD+ WP.NBA.1stYear+ BP.Height.Cm+ BP.Weight.Kg+ WP.Age, data=Sdata)
tab_model(OLS,show.se = TRUE, show.p = TRUE, show.df = F, show.r2 = TRUE, show.re.var = TRUE, show.aic = TRUE, show.aicc = TRUE, show.dev = TRUE, show.loglik = TRUE, show.obs = TRUE, show.reflvl = TRUE,digits = 3,title="Table 7. Results of OLS regression for job performance",file = "OLS.doc")| Job performance | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Predictors | Estimates | std. Error | CI | p |
| (Intercept) | 0.000 | 0.034 | -0.067 – 0.068 | 0.990 |
| Coworker-serving behavior | 0.275 | 0.048 | 0.181 – 0.369 | <0.001 |
| Team-serving behavior | 0.527 | 0.059 | 0.411 – 0.644 | <0.001 |
| Team performance | 0.083 | 0.054 | -0.023 – 0.188 | 0.124 |
|
Average age of all players in a team |
-0.063 | 0.054 | -0.170 – 0.044 | 0.245 |
|
Average tenure of team member |
-0.023 | 0.046 | -0.114 – 0.067 | 0.612 |
|
Inequality of team members’ playing time |
0.033 | 0.042 | -0.048 – 0.115 | 0.425 |
|
Inequality of the number of starts |
-0.062 | 0.045 | -0.149 – 0.026 | 0.169 |
| Team cooperation | 0.002 | 0.040 | -0.076 – 0.081 | 0.955 |
| Age of joining the team | -0.022 | 0.040 | -0.099 – 0.056 | 0.586 |
| Uncooperative behavior | -0.198 | 0.051 | -0.299 – -0.097 | <0.001 |
| Working time | 0.119 | 0.041 | 0.038 – 0.201 | 0.004 |
| Height | -0.009 | 0.064 | -0.135 – 0.118 | 0.895 |
| Weight | 0.121 | 0.062 | -0.000 – 0.243 | 0.050 |
| Player age | -0.034 | 0.038 | -0.109 – 0.040 | 0.365 |
| Observations | 542 | |||
| R2 / R2 adjusted | 0.426 / 0.411 | |||
| Deviance | 326.096 | |||
| AIC | 1294.753 | |||
| AICc | 1295.789 | |||
| log-Likelihood | -631.377 | |||
For statistical modeling, we applied OLS regression to examine all predictors of job performance in ML. While the model’s overall performance of explainability does not surpass that ofSAFL, it exceeds ALMMo and several ML (e.g., LASSO, BRR, RF), with R² valued at 0.528 and an adjusted R² of 0.513. This indicates the model based on OLS regression, boasting an R² of 0.528 and an adjusted R² of 0.513, significantly elucidates more than half the variability in job performance. On the significance front, both self-serving and team-serving behaviors were strongly linked to job performance improvements, evidenced by estimates of 1.040 (p < 0.001) and 0.433 (p < 0.001), respectively. Moreover, coworker-serving behavior and the average age of all team players were positively correlated with job performance, as demonstrated by estimates of 0.129 (p = 0.011) and 0.132 (p = 0.017). Noteworthy is the finding that workload Working amount was inversely related to job performance, with an estimate of -1.036 (p < 0.001), suggesting a detrimental effect of increased workload on performance. Other variables did not exhibit statistical significance in this context. This outcome underscores that XML slightly outperforms ordinary least squares (OLS) regression in performance of explainability. The enhanced data fit provided by XML can be ascribed to its methodology of establishing multiple local models, thereby capturing the nuances within the dataset more effectively.