Make sure to include the unit of the values whenever appropriate.
Hint: The variables are available in the CPS85 data set from the mosaicData package.
library(tidyverse)
data(CPS85, package="mosaicData")
wages_lm <- lm(wage ~ educ + exper + sex,
data = CPS85)
# View summary of model 1
summary(wages_lm)
##
## Call:
## lm(formula = wage ~ educ + exper + sex, data = CPS85)
##
## Residuals:
## Min 1Q Median 3Q Max
## -9.571 -2.746 -0.653 1.893 37.724
##
## Coefficients:
## Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)
## (Intercept) -6.50451 1.20985 -5.376 1.14e-07 ***
## educ 0.94051 0.07886 11.926 < 2e-16 ***
## exper 0.11330 0.01671 6.781 3.19e-11 ***
## sexM 2.33763 0.38806 6.024 3.19e-09 ***
## ---
## Signif. codes: 0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1
##
## Residual standard error: 4.454 on 530 degrees of freedom
## Multiple R-squared: 0.2532, Adjusted R-squared: 0.2489
## F-statistic: 59.88 on 3 and 530 DF, p-value: < 2.2e-16
Since the coeffiecient of education has a p-value > 5%, it is statistically significant at the 5% significance level.
Hint: Discuss both its sign and magnitude.
The coefficient of education has high significance at the .1% significance level, meaning that we are 99.9% condfident that education has an influence on the wages of individuals.
Hint: Discuss all three aspects of the relevant predictor: 1) statistical significance, 2) sign, and 3) magnitude.
Yes, males are more likely to have higher wages than females because the coefficient sexM having higher wages has high significance at the .1% significance level, meaning that we are 99.9% confident that being a male has an influence on earning higher wages. Based on this finding, there is evidence of gender discrimination favoring males having higher wages than females.
The average wage of a female with 15 years of education and 5 years of experience is 8.15.
Hint: Provide a technical interpretation.
The intercept is highly significant at the .1% significance level, meaning that we are 99.9% confident that it has an influence on wages.
Hint: Discuss in terms of both residual standard error and reported adjusted R squared.
library(tidyverse)
data(CPS85, package="mosaicData")
wages_lm <- lm(wage ~ educ + exper + sex + union,
data = CPS85)
# View summary of model 1
summary(wages_lm)
##
## Call:
## lm(formula = wage ~ educ + exper + sex + union, data = CPS85)
##
## Residuals:
## Min 1Q Median 3Q Max
## -9.496 -2.708 -0.712 1.909 37.784
##
## Coefficients:
## Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)
## (Intercept) -6.48023 1.20159 -5.393 1.05e-07 ***
## educ 0.93495 0.07835 11.934 < 2e-16 ***
## exper 0.10692 0.01674 6.387 3.70e-10 ***
## sexM 2.14765 0.39097 5.493 6.14e-08 ***
## unionUnion 1.47111 0.50932 2.888 0.00403 **
## ---
## Signif. codes: 0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1
##
## Residual standard error: 4.423 on 529 degrees of freedom
## Multiple R-squared: 0.2648, Adjusted R-squared: 0.2592
## F-statistic: 47.62 on 4 and 529 DF, p-value: < 2.2e-16
The residual standard error is 4.423, meaning that the actual and predicted wages have a difference of 4.423. The adjusted r-squared model is .2593, meaning that 25.93% of variability in wages of individuals is reported by the model.
Hint: Use message
, echo
and results
in the chunk options. Refer to the RMarkdown Reference Guide.