Warning: foreach() argument must be of type array|object, bool given in /var/www/html/web/app/themes/studypress-core-theme/template-parts/header/mobile-offcanvas.php on line 20

This exercise requires the use of a computer package. The authors of the article "Absolute Versus per Unit Body Length Speed of Prey as an Estimator of Vulnerability to Predation" (Animal Behaviour [1999]: \(347-\) 352) found that the speed of a prey (twips/s) and the length of a prey (twips \(\times 100\) ) are good predictors of the time (s) required to catch the prey. (A twip is a measure of distance used by programmers.) Data were collected in an experiment where subjects were asked to "catch" an animal of prey moving across his or her computer screen by clicking on it with the mouse. The investigators varied the length of the prey and the speed with which the prey moved across the screen. The following data are consistent with summary values and a graph given in the article. Each value represents the average catch time over all subjects. The order of the various speed-length combinations was randomized for each subject. $$ \begin{array}{ccc} \begin{array}{c} \text { Prey } \\ \text { Length } \end{array} & \begin{array}{l} \text { Prey } \\ \text { Speed } \end{array} & \begin{array}{l} \text { Catch } \\ \text { Time } \end{array} \\ \hline 7 & 20 & 1.10 \\ 6 & 20 & 1.20 \\ 5 & 20 & 1.23 \\ 4 & 20 & 1.40 \\ 3 & 20 & 1.50 \\ 3 & 40 & 1.40 \\ 4 & 40 & 1.36 \\ 6 & 40 & 1.30 \\ 7 & 40 & 1.28 \\ 7 & 80 & 1.40 \\ 6 & 60 & 1.38 \\ 5 & 80 & 1.40 \\ 7 & 100 & 1.43 \\ 6 & 100 & 1.43 \\ 7 & 120 & 1.70 \\ 5 & 80 & 1.50 \\ 3 & 80 & 1.40 \\ 6 & 100 & 1.50 \\ 3 & 120 & 1.90 \\ & & \\ \hline \end{array} $$ a. Fit a multiple regression model for predicting catch time using prey length and speed as predictors. b. Predict the catch time for an animal of prey whose length is 6 and whose speed is 50 . c. Is the multiple regression model useful for predicting catch time? Test the relevant hypotheses using \(\alpha=.05\). d. The authors of the article suggest that a simple linear regression model with the single predictor \(x=\frac{\text { length }}{\text { speed }}\) might be a better model for predicting catch time. Calculate the \(x\) values and use them to fit this linear regression model. e. Which of the two models considered (the multiple regression model from Part (a) or the simple linear regression model from Part (d)) would you recommend for predicting catch time? Justify your choice.

Short Answer

Expert verified
This problem involves fitting two types of regression models and choosing the better of the two based on R-squared values. The models are to predict the catch time of prey based on the prey's length and speed. Hypothesis testing also shows if the predictor variables significantly affect the outcome variable.

Step by step solution

01

Fitting the Multiple Regression Model

The first step is to fit a multiple regression model using length and speed of the prey as the variables. In multiple regression, we use two or more variables to predict the outcome. Use a statistical package to fit the model: 'Catch time ~ Length + Speed' where catch time is the dependent variable, and length and speed are the independent variables.
02

Predicting the Catch Time

The next task is to predict the catch time for a prey with a length of 6 and a speed of 50. You can do this by inputting these values into the regression model obtained in the previous step. This gives a calculated catch time.
03

Hypothesis testing

This part requires checking if the model is useful for predicting catch time. Set up two hypotheses: the null hypothesis (H0) which assumes that the predictors (length and speed) have no effect on the catch time, and the alternative hypothesis (H1) which assumes that at least one of the predictors affects the catch time. Perform an F-test with a significance level of 0.05. If the p-value is less than 0.05, reject the null hypothesis and conclude that the model is useful.
04

Fit the Simple Linear Regression Model

Now consider the alternative model proposed by the authors, where single predictor x is 'length/speed'. Calculate these x values for each data point and fit a simple linear regression model: 'Catch time ~ x'.
05

Model recommendation

The final step involves choosing between the two models (the multiple regression model and the simple linear regression model) based on how well they fit the data. Compare the R-squared values of both models. A higher R-squared value indicates a better fit for the data.

Unlock Step-by-Step Solutions & Ace Your Exams!

  • Full Textbook Solutions

    Get detailed explanations and key concepts

  • Unlimited Al creation

    Al flashcards, explanations, exams and more...

  • Ads-free access

    To over 500 millions flashcards

  • Money-back guarantee

    We refund you if you fail your exam.

Over 30 million students worldwide already upgrade their learning with Vaia!

One App. One Place for Learning.

All the tools & learning materials you need for study success - in one app.

Get started for free

Most popular questions from this chapter

According to "Assessing the Validity of the PostMaterialism Index" (American Political Science Review [1999]: \(649-664\) ), one may be able to predict an individual's level of support for ecology based on demographic and ideological characteristics. The multiple regression model proposed by the authors was $$ \begin{aligned} &y=3.60-.01 x_{1}+.01 x_{2}-.07 x_{3}+.12 x_{4}+.02 x_{5} \\ &\quad-.04 x_{6}-.01 x_{7}-.04 x_{8}-.02 x_{9}+e \end{aligned} $$ where the variables are defined as follows \(y=\) ecology score (higher values indicate a greater con- $$ \begin{aligned} & \text { cern for ecology) } \\ x_{1}=& \text { age times } 10 \end{aligned} $$ \(x_{2}=\) income (in thousands of dollars) \(x_{3}=\) gender \((1=\) male, \(0=\) female \()\) \(x_{4}=\) race \((1=\) white, \(0=\) nonwhite \()\) \(x_{5}=\) education (in years) \(x_{6}=\) ideology \((4=\) conservative, \(3=\) right of center, \(2=\) middle of the road, \(1=\) left of center, and \(0=\) liberal \()\) \(x_{7}=\) social class \((4=\) upper, \(3=\) upper middle, \(2=\) middle, \(1=\) lower middle, \(0=\) lower \()\) \(x_{8}=\) postmaterialist ( 1 if postmaterialist, 0 otherwise) \(x_{9}=\) materialist \((1\) if materialist, 0 otherwise) a. Suppose you knew a person with the following characteristics: a 25-year- old, white female with a college degree (16 years of education), who has a \(\$ 32,000\) -per-year job, is from the upper middle class and considers herself left of center, but who is neither a materialist nor a postmaterialist. Predict her ecology score. b. If the woman described in Part (a) were Hispanic rather than white, how would the prediction change? c. Given that the other variables are the same, what is the estimated mean difference in ecology score for men and women? d. How would you interpret the coefficient of \(x_{2}\) ? e. Comment on the numerical coding of the ideology and social class variables. Can you suggest a better way of incorporating these two variables into the model?

The article "The Undrained Strength of Some Thawed Permafrost Soils" (Canadian Geotechnical Journal \([1979]: 420-427\) ) contained the accompanying data (see page 778 ) on \(y=\) shear strength of sandy soil \((\mathrm{kPa})\), \(x_{1}=\) depth \((\mathrm{m})\), and \(x_{2}=\) water content \((\%) .\) The predicted values and residuals were computed using the estimated regression equation $$ \begin{aligned} \hat{y}=&-151.36-16.22 x_{1}+13.48 x_{2}+.094 x_{3}-.253 x_{4} \\ &+.492 x_{5} \\ \text { where } x_{3} &=x_{1}^{2}, x_{4}=x_{2}^{2}, \text { and } x_{5}=x_{1} x_{2} \end{aligned} $$ $$ \begin{array}{clrrrrr} \text { Product } & \text { Material } & \text { Height } & \begin{array}{l} \text { Maximum } \\ \text { Width } \end{array} & \begin{array}{l} \text { Minimum } \\ \text { Width } \end{array} & \text { Elongation } & \text { Volume } \\ \hline 1 & \text { glass } & 7.7 & 2.50 & 1.80 & 1.50 & 125 \\ 2 & \text { glass } & 6.2 & 2.90 & 2.70 & 1.07 & 135 \\ 3 & \text { glass } & 8.5 & 2.15 & 2.00 & 1.98 & 175 \\ 4 & \text { glass } & 10.4 & 2.90 & 2.60 & 1.79 & 285 \\ 5 & \text { plastic } & 8.0 & 3.20 & 3.15 & 1.25 & 330 \\ 6 & \text { glass } & 8.7 & 2.00 & 1.80 & 2.17 & 90 \\ 7 & \text { glass } & 10.2 & 1.60 & 1.50 & 3.19 & 120 \\ 8 & \text { plastic } & 10.5 & 4.80 & 3.80 & 1.09 & 520 \\ 9 & \text { plastic } & 3.4 & 5.90 & 5.00 & 0.29 & 330 \\ 10 & \text { plastic } & 6.9 & 5.80 & 4.75 & 0.59 & 570\\\ 11 & \text { tin } & 10.9 & 2.90 & 2.80 & 1.88 & 340 \\ 12 & \text { plastic } & 9.7 & 2.45 & 2.10 & 1.98 & 175 \\ 13 & \text { glass } & 10.1 & 2.60 & 2.20 & 1.94 & 240 \\ 14 & \text { glass } & 13.0 & 2.60 & 2.60 & 2.50 & 240 \\ 15 & \text { glass } & 13.0 & 2.70 & 2.60 & 2.41 & 360 \\ 16 & \text { glass } & 11.0 & 3.10 & 2.90 & 1.77 & 310 \\ 17 & \text { cardboard } & 8.7 & 5.10 & 5.10 & 0.85 & 635 \\ 18 & \text { cardboard } & 17.1 & 10.20 & 10.20 & 0.84 & 1250 \\ 19 & \text { glass } & 16.5 & 3.50 & 3.50 & 2.36 & 650 \\ 20 & \text { glass } & 16.5 & 2.70 & 1.20 & 3.06 & 305 \\ 21 & \text { glass } & 9.7 & 3.00 & 1.70 & 1.62 & 315 \\ 22 & \text { glass } & 17.8 & 2.70 & 1.75 & 3.30 & 305 \\ 23 & \text { glass } & 14.0 & 2.50 & 1.70 & 2.80 & 245 \\ 24 & \text { glass } & 13.6 & 2.40 & 1.20 & 2.83 & 200 \\ 25 & \text { plastic } & 27.9 & 4.40 & 1.20 & 3.17 & 1205 \\ 26 & \text { tin } & 19.5 & 7.50 & 7.50 & 1.30 & 2330 \\ 27 & \text { tin } & 13.8 & 4.25 & 4.25 & 1.62 & 730 \end{array} $$ $$ \begin{array}{rrrrr} {\boldsymbol{y}} & {\boldsymbol{x}_{1}} & \boldsymbol{x}_{2} & \text { Predicted } \boldsymbol{y} & {\text { Residual }} \\ \hline 14.7 & 8.9 & 31.5 & 23.35 & -8.65 \\ 48.0 & 36.6 & 27.0 & 46.38 & 1.62 \\ 25.6 & 36.8 & 25.9 & 27.13 & -1.53 \\ 10.0 & 6.1 & 39.1 & 10.99 & -0.99 \\ 16.0 & 6.9 & 39.2 & 14.10 & 1.90 \\ 16.8 & 6.9 & 38.3 & 16.54 & 0.26 \\ 20.7 & 7.3 & 33.9 & 23.34 & -2.64 \\ 38.8 & 8.4 & 33.8 & 25.43 & 13.37 \\ 16.9 & 6.5 & 27.9 & 15.63 & 1.27 \\ 27.0 & 8.0 & 33.1 & 24.29 & 2.71 \\ 16.0 & 4.5 & 26.3 & 15.36 & 0.64 \\ 24.9 & 9.9 & 37.8 & 29.61 & -4.71 \\ 7.3 & 2.9 & 34.6 & 15.38 & -8.08 \\ 12.8 & 2.0 & 36.4 & 7.96 & 4.84 \\ \hline \end{array} $$ a. Use the given information to compute SSResid, SSTo, and SSRegr. b. Calculate \(R^{2}\) for this regression model. How would you interpret this value? c. Use the value of \(R^{2}\) from Part (b) and a .05 level of significance to conduct the appropriate model utility test.

The article "The Caseload Controversy and the Study of Criminal Courts" (Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology [1979]: 89-101) used a multiple regression analysis to help assess the impact of judicial caseload on the processing of criminal court cases. Data were collected in the Chicago criminal courts on the following variables: $$ \begin{aligned} y &=\text { number of indictments } \\ x_{1} &=\text { number of cases on the docket } \end{aligned} $$ \(x_{2}=\) number of cases pending in criminal court trial system The estimated regression equation (based on \(n=367\) observations) was $$ \hat{y}=28-.05 x_{1}-.003 x_{2}+.00002 x_{3} $$ where \(x_{3}=x_{1} x_{2}\) a. The reported value of \(R^{2}\) was . 16. Conduct the model utility test. Use a \(.05\) significance level. b. Given the results of the test in Part (a), does it surprise you that the \(R^{2}\) value is so low? Can you think of a possible explanation for this? c. How does adjusted \(R^{2}\) compare to \(R^{2}\) ?

This exercise requires the use of a computer package. The accompanying data resulted from a study of the relationship between \(y=\) brightness of finished paper and the independent variables \(x_{1}=\) hydrogen peroxide (\% by weight), \(x_{2}=\) sodium hydroxide (\% by weight), \(x_{3}=\) silicate \((\%\) by weight \()\), and \(x_{4}=\) process temperature ("Advantages of CE-HDP Bleaching for High Brightness Kraft Pulp Production," TAPPI [1964]: 107A-173A). $$ \begin{array}{ccccc} x_{1} & x_{2} & x_{3} & x_{4} & y \\ \hline .2 & .2 & 1.5 & 145 & 83.9 \\ .4 & .2 & 1.5 & 145 & 84.9 \\ .2 & .4 & 1.5 & 145 & 83.4 \\ .4 & .4 & 1.5 & 145 & 84.2 \\ .2 & .2 & 3.5 & 145 & 83.8 \\ .4 & .2 & 3.5 & 145 & 84.7 \\ .2 & .4 & 3.5 & 145 & 84.0 \\ .4 & .4 & 3.5 & 145 & 84.8 \\ .2 & .2 & 1.5 & 175 & 84.5 \\ .4 & .2 & 1.5 & 175 & 86.0 \\ .2 & .4 & 1.5 & 175 & 82.6 \\ .4 & .4 & 1.5 & 175 & 85.1 \\ .2 & .2 & 3.5 & 175 & 84.5 \\ .4 & .2 & 3.5 & 175 & 86.0 \\ .2 & .4 & 3.5 & 175 & 84.0 \\ .4 & .4 & 3.5 & 175 & 85.4 \\ .1 & .3 & 2.5 & 160 & 82.9 \\ .5 & .3 & 2.5 & 160 & 85.5\\\ .3 & .1 & 2.5 & 160 & 85.2 \\ .3 & .5 & 2.5 & 160 & 84.5 \\ .3 & .3 & 0.5 & 160 & 84.7 \\ .3 & .3 & 4.5 & 160 & 85.0 \\ .3 & .3 & 2.5 & 130 & 84.9 \\ .3 & .3 & 2.5 & 190 & 84.0 \\ .3 & .3 & 2.5 & 160 & 84.5 \\ .3 & .3 & 2.5 & 160 & 84.7 \\ .3 & .3 & 2.5 & 160 & 84.6 \\ .3 & .3 & 2.5 & 160 & 84.9 \\ .3 & .3 & 2.5 & 160 & 84.9 \\ .3 & .3 & 2.5 & 160 & 84.5 \\ .3 & .3 & 2.5 & 160 & 84.6 \end{array} $$ a. Find the estimated regression equation for the model that includes all independent variables, all quadratic terms, and all interaction terms. b. Using a \(.05\) significance level, perform the model utility test. c. Interpret the values of the following quantities: SSResid, \(R^{2}, s_{e}\)

If we knew the width and height of cylindrical tin cans of food, could we predict the volume of these cans with precision and accuracy? a. Give the equation that would allow us to make such predictions. b. Is the relationship between volume and its predictors, height and width, a linear one? c. Should we use an additive multiple regression model to predict a volume of a can from its height and width? Explain. d. If you were to take logarithms of each side of the equation in Part (a), would the relationship be linear?

See all solutions

Recommended explanations on Math Textbooks

View all explanations

What do you think about this solution?

We value your feedback to improve our textbook solutions.

Study anywhere. Anytime. Across all devices.

Sign-up for free