• We are pleased to announce that the winner of our Feedback Prize Draw for the Winter 2024-25 session and winning £150 of gift vouchers is Zhao Liang Tay. Congratulations to Zhao Liang. If you fancy winning £150 worth of gift vouchers (from a major UK store) for the Summer 2025 exam sitting for just a few minutes of your time throughout the session, please see our website at https://www.acted.co.uk/further-info.html?pat=feedback#feedback-prize for more information on how you can make sure your name is included in the draw at the end of the session.
  • Please be advised that the SP1, SP5 and SP7 X1 deadline is the 14th July and not the 17th June as first stated. Please accept out apologies for any confusion caused.

Emblem result - puzzled!

E

Entact30

Member
I'm running a HH severity model in Emblem and one of the factors (dwelling type) is significant and time-consistent after doing some level of grouping. However, after fitting the factor the fitted average curve is actually further away to the observed average than the fitted average from the reference model (before factor was included). Can anyone explain this?

Thanks in advance!
 
Any complex aliases.? (unexplained colinearity)

What do the betas of the factor say? Are they green.
 
sonnyshook said:
Any complex aliases.? (unexplained colinearity)

What do the betas of the factor say? Are they green.
Click to expand...

Hi Sonnyshook,

No complex aliases and none of the standard errors are red.

I had a look at the Cook's Pearson for potential outliers and the highest value is 0.18. I read that only residuals with a Cook's distance of > 1 should be considered for exclusion/capping.
 
Is the dwelling type factor weighted differently to other factors such that its pulling a lot of weight.

What criteria do you use for picking a significant factor.

A new factor is admissible for the following reasons:

  • You have certainty that the factor you have just fitted and all the factor levels within the factor are not based on suspect data
  • You can not easily draw a straight line to the model line points without crossing standard error bars
  • It has at least one or two betas with green errors in the Beta list (less than or equal to 50%)
  • It fits the CA better to the OBS line
  • There is good level of exposure in the factor levels with the narrowest error bars
  • It makes the new model have a lower akaike coefficient, BIC, etc
  • When fitted it does not have a signifcance greater than 5% for chi squared for likeihood of equality of the reference model to the newaly fitted one
If we can agree on the above then the dwelling factor is indeed significant. And we can proceed to investigate further
 
Entact30 said:
I'm running a HH severity model in Emblem and one of the factors (dwelling type) is significant and time-consistent after doing some level of grouping. However, after fitting the factor the fitted average curve is actually further away to the observed average than the fitted average from the reference model (before factor was included). Can anyone explain this?

Thanks in advance!
Click to expand...

My guess would be you have incorrectly specified the variance function.

Do any initial tests of the claim size distribution show any discontinuities or are there any anomolies in your data?

You should always be able to closely model a one way effect with a simple factor in a GLM - Except ofcourse when the selected variance function is not appropriate given the emperical variance - this always affects resulting parameter estimates.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top