Lance Westerhoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hello All- > > I found an inconsistency between the R-squared reported in Excel vs. > that in R, and I am wondering which (if any) may be correct and if > this is a known issue. While it certainly wouldn't surprise me if > Excel is just flat out wrong, I just want to make sure since the R- > squared reported in R seems surprisingly high. Please let me know if > this is the wrong list. Thanks!
Excel is flat out wrong. As the name implies, R-squared values cannot be less than zero (adjusted R-squared can, but I wouldn't think that is what Excel does). R-squared is a bit odd in the zero intercept case because it describes how much better the line describes data compared to a horizontal line *at zero*. However, it doesn't really makes sense to compare with a non-zero constant, because the models are not nested. -- O__ ---- Peter Dalgaard Øster Farimagsgade 5, Entr.B c/ /'_ --- Dept. of Biostatistics PO Box 2099, 1014 Cph. K (*) \(*) -- University of Copenhagen Denmark Ph: (+45) 35327918 ~~~~~~~~~~ - ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) FAX: (+45) 35327907 ______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide! http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
