Quite, but apparently not a boisterous one?
John Kane
Kingston ON Canada
-Original Message-
From: cfly...@ncsu.edu
Sent: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 14:35:06 -0400
To: jrkrid...@inbox.com
Subject: Re: [R] VIF threshold implying multicollinearity
No actually it is a quiet good paper! :)
On Mon
+1
I, originally, read it as a stringent criticism of the first paper.
John Kane
Kingston ON Canada
-Original Message-
From: r.tur...@auckland.ac.nz
Sent: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 15:12:43 +1200
To: cfly...@ncsu.edu
Subject: Re: [R] VIF threshold implying multicollinearity
On 27/07
Jul 2015 15:12:43 +1200
To: cfly...@ncsu.edu
Subject: Re: [R] VIF threshold implying multicollinearity
On 27/07/15 13:36, Collin Lynch wrote:
The following sources discuss the issues generally and may be a goof
pointer to the literature ...
SNIP
I think that the foregoing
Dear All
I have a general question about VIF.
While there are multiple rules of thumb about the threshold value of
VIF, e.g. 4 or 10, implying multicollinearity, I am wondering if
anyone can point me to some literature supporting these rules of
thumb.
Thank you so much!
wensui
On 27/07/15 13:36, Collin Lynch wrote:
The following sources discuss the issues generally and may be a goof
pointer to the literature ...
SNIP
I think that the foregoing merits fortune status! :-)
cheers,
Rolf
--
Technical Editor ANZJS
Department of Statistics
University of Auckland
The following sources discuss the issues generally and may be a goof
pointer to the literature on VIF. Particularly the Schroeder paper.
@article{Yi:Evaluation,
AUTHOR = {Youjae Yi},
TITLE = {On the Evaluation of Main Effects in Multiplicative
Regression Models.},
JOURNAL
6 matches
Mail list logo
