[R] Residuals -- was: Rcmdr vs SPSS in hungarian

Bert Gunter gunter.berton at gene.com
Thu Apr 21 17:24:31 CEST 2011

Inline below:

2011/4/21 Jeremy Miles <jeremy.miles at gmail.com>
> Just because it comes from a book does not make it true or correct.


> Books are subject to considerably less peer review than journal
> articles.

Yes, but ... Peer review among journals is uneven, especially for
those from private for-profit publishers. And even for top flight
journals, dealing with articles that contain analyses of large complex
data has become a considerable challenge. See e.g. "Reproducible

 Publishers will publish a book written by (almost) anyone -
> I know this, because I've written some of them and they were
> published.
> There really isn't much difference, most of the time, between
> different sorts of residuals, usually they are used for eyeballing
> potential problems in your data, in which case it doesn't matter which
> you use.

-- I believe this is a bit too facile. In GLM's and even in plain
(least squares) multiple regression, different residuals can have
different sd's, so that, for example,  a large in magnitude residual
may seem to be "unusual" when it is not. Appropriate standardization
can be important even for "eyeballing".



Bert Gunter
Genentech Nonclinical Biostatistics

More information about the R-help mailing list