Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
![]()
Posted to microsoft.public.excel.worksheet.functions
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
When I regress 86 pairs of lab duplicates, I get a better fit by hard-coding
0 intercept than letting XL calculate it. This seems wrong: the least squares regression should be the best fit of the data. I compared LINEST and the Regression tool in the Data Analysis Tool Pak and they yield the same answer. I suspected that XL adds a (0,0) to the data set because the total df in the ANOVA output is one larger for the fixed intercept, but testing that with RSQ yielded a different value. The stats (below) all favor the fixed intercept; even the calculated slope is closer to 1 and the confidence limits are tighter: Stat b=calc b=0 Intercept -0.02048 0 Rsq 0.9929 0.9991 std Err 0.2318 0.2306 Slope 1.0045 1.0020 std Err 0.0093 0.0033 L 95.0% 0.9861 0.9955 U 95.0% 1.0230 1.0085 Thanks in advance for any input. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
regression using set intercept | Excel Discussion (Misc queries) | |||
Linear Regression by set Slope (not intercept) | Excel Discussion (Misc queries) | |||
Excel Linear Regression by set slope (not intercept) | Excel Worksheet Functions | |||
Regression intercept to 0 | Excel Worksheet Functions | |||
Intercept and Indirect | Excel Worksheet Functions |