The world’s Largest Sharp Brain Virtual Experts Marketplace Just a click Away
Levels Tought:
University
| Teaching Since: | Apr 2017 |
| Last Sign in: | 438 Weeks Ago, 1 Day Ago |
| Questions Answered: | 9562 |
| Tutorials Posted: | 9559 |
bachelor in business administration
Polytechnic State University Sanluis
Jan-2006 - Nov-2010
CPA
Polytechnic State University
Jan-2012 - Nov-2016
Professor
Harvard Square Academy (HS2)
Mar-2012 - Present
Â
Consider the loglinear model selection for Table 6.3.
a. Why is it not sensible to consider models omitting the λGM term?
b. Using forward selection starting with(GM, E, P)., show that model (GM, GP, EG, EMP)seems reasonable.
c. Using backward elimination, show that(GM, GP, EMP)or (GM, GP, EG, EMP)seems reasonable.
d. The EMP interaction seems vital. To describe it, show that the effect of extramarital sex on divorce is greater for subjects who had no premarital sex.
e. Use residuals to describe the lack of fit of model(GM, EMP).
TABLE 6.3 Marital Status by Report of Pre- and Extramarital Sex(PMS and EMS)
|
 |
Gender |
||||||||
|
Women |
Men |
||||||||
| Â |
PMS: |
Yes |
No |
Yes |
No |
||||
|
Marital Status |
EMS: |
Yes |
No |
Yes |
No |
Yes |
No |
Yes |
No |
|
Divorced |
17 |
54 |
36 |
214 |
28 |
60 |
17 |
68 |
|
|
Still married |
4 |
25 |
4 |
322 |
11 |
42 |
4 |
130 |
|
-----------