Exercise 8.1 introduces a data set on birth weight of babies. Another variable we consider is parity, which is 0 if the child is the first born, and 1 otherwise. The summary table below shows the results of a linear regression model for predicting the average birth weight of babies, measured in ounces, from parity.
\[\hat{y}=120.07 - 1.93 (parity)\]
The slope indicates that babies who are not first born weigh 1.93 ounces less.
A first-born child’s weight: 120.07 - 1.93(1) = 118.14 ounces
Other children: 120.07 - 1.93(0) = 120.07 ounces
There is no significant association between birth weight and parity (p-value > 0.05).
Researchers interested in the relationship between absenteeism from school and certain demographic characteristics of children collected data from 146 randomly sampled sch- dents in rural New South Wales, Australia, in a particular school year. Below are three observations from this data set.
The summary table below shows the results of a linear regression model for predicting the average number of days absent based on ethnic background (eth: 0 - aboriginal, 1 - not aboriginal), sex (sex: 0 - female, 1 - male), and learner status (lrn: 0 - average learner, 1 - slow learner).
\[\hat{y}=18.93 - 9.11 (eth) + 3.10 (sex) + 2.15 (lrn)\]
Predicted days absent = 18.93 - 9.11(1) + 3.1(1) + 2.15(1) = 15.07
Residual = 2 - 15.07 = -20.79
\(R^2\) = 1 - (240.57/264.17) = 0.0893364
adj \(R^2\) = \(R^2\cdot(\frac{(146-1)}{(146-3-1)})\) = 0.0912238
Exercise 8.4 considers a model that predicts the number of days absent using three predictors: ethnic background (eth), gender (sex), and learner status (lrn). The table below shows the adjusted R-squared for the model as well as adjusted R-squared values for all models we evaluate in the first step of the backwards elimination process.
Which, if any, variable should be removed from the model first?
Learner status should be removed first.
On January 28, 1986, a routine launch was anticipated for the Challenger space shuttle. Seventy-three seconds into the flight, disaster happened: the shuttle broke apart, killing all seven crew members on board. An investigation into the cause of the disaster focused on a critical seal called an O-ring, and it is believed that damage to these O-rings during a shuttle launch may be related to the ambient temperature during the launch. The table below summarizes observational data on O-rings for 23 shuttle missions, where the mission order is based on the temperature at the time of the launch. Temp gives the temperature in Fahrenheit, Damaged represents the number of damaged O-rings, and Undamaged represents the number of O-rings that were not damaged.
Damage to the O-rings seem to occur most frequently at temperatures at or below 63 degrees Fahrenheit.
At 0 degrees Fahrenheit, the probability ratio of a damaged O-ring to undamaged O-ring is \(e^{11.6630}\); for every degree Fahrenheit increase in temperature the probability of damage decreases by a multiple of \(e^{-0.2162}\). Values of Pr(>|z|) indicate significance.
\[\ln \bigg(\frac{\hat{p}}{1-\hat{p}}\bigg) = 11.6630 - 0.2162(t)\]
Yes, the concerns are justified. Lower temperatures are associated with O-ring damage.
Exercise 8.16 introduced us to O-rings that were identified as a plausible explanation for the breakup of the Challenger space shuttle 73 seconds into takeoff in 1986. The investigation found that the ambient temperature at the time of the shuttle launch was closely related to the damage of O-rings, which are a critical component of the shuttle. See this earlier exercise if you would like to browse the original data.
\(\ln\bigg(\frac{\hat{p}}{1-\hat{p}}\bigg)=11.6630 - 0.2162(t)\implies \hat{p}=(1-\hat{p})e^{11.6630-0.2161(t)}\)
\(\implies \hat{p}=e^{11.6630-0.2161(t)}-\hat{p}e^{11.6630-0.2161(t)}\)
\(\implies \hat{p}+\hat{p}e^{11.6630-0.2161(t)}=e^{11.6630-0.2161(t)}\)
\(\implies \hat{p}(1+e^{11.6630-0.2161(t)})=e^{11.6630-0.2161(t)}\)
\(\implies \hat{p}=\frac{e^{11.6630-0.2161(t)}}{1+e^{11.6630-0.2161(t)}}\)
p_hat51=round((exp(11.6630-(0.2162*51)))/(1+exp(11.6630-(0.2162*51))),3)
p_hat53=round((exp(11.6630-(0.2162*53)))/(1+exp(11.6630-(0.2162*53))),3)
p_hat55=round((exp(11.6630-(0.2162*55)))/(1+exp(11.6630-(0.2162*55))),3)
cat("Probability of damage at 51 degrees:",p_hat51,"\n")
## Probability of damage at 51 degrees: 0.654
cat("Probability of damage at 53 degrees:",p_hat53,"\n")
## Probability of damage at 53 degrees: 0.551
cat("Probability of damage at 55 degrees:",p_hat55,"\n")
## Probability of damage at 55 degrees: 0.443
temp <- c(51,53,55,57,59,61,63,65,67,69,71)
p_model <- c(0.654,0.551,0.443,0.341,0.251,0.179,0.124,0.084,0.056,0.037,0.024)
tmp <- c(53,57,58,63,66,67,67,67,68,69,70,70,70,70,72,73,75,75,76,76,78,79,81)
dam <- c(5,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0)
Model<-data.frame(TMP=temp,PRD=p_model)
Observed <- data.frame(TMP=tmp, dam)
Observed$PRD<-Observed$dam/6
library(ggplot2)
ggplot(NULL,aes(x=TMP,y=PRD))+
geom_line(data=Model,colour="blue")+
geom_line(data=Model,size=15,colour="lightgray",alpha=0.5)+
geom_point(data=Model,size=3,colour="black")+
geom_point(data=Observed,size=3,colour="red")+
theme_classic()+
theme(legend.position="none")
c. Describe any concerns you may have regarding applying logistic regression in this application, and note any assumptions that are required to accept the model’s validity.
Residual variance should be constant and the residuals should be distributed normally.