1998
DOI: 10.1080/00031305.1998.10480530
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Some Cautionary Notes on the Use of Principal Components Regression

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
38
0

Year Published

2005
2005
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 114 publications
(41 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
0
38
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For instance, linear combinations of collinear variables (principal components) can be used as synthetic independent predictors in principal component regressions (Vigneau et al 1997). However, this kind of approach may show serious statistical pitfalls (Hadi & Ling 1998), while the new independent variables will often be difficult to interpret (see Dormann et al 2013 for details and a review of other available methods).…”
Section: Dealing With Multicollinearitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For instance, linear combinations of collinear variables (principal components) can be used as synthetic independent predictors in principal component regressions (Vigneau et al 1997). However, this kind of approach may show serious statistical pitfalls (Hadi & Ling 1998), while the new independent variables will often be difficult to interpret (see Dormann et al 2013 for details and a review of other available methods).…”
Section: Dealing With Multicollinearitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The problem here is that these three variables are necessarily co-linear due to the relationship t ¼ ðCT max À T 0 Þ=DT. It is well known that (severe) co-linearity creates serious problems if the purpose of the regression is to understand the process, to identify important variables in the process, or to obtain meaningful estimates of the regression coefficients (Rawlings 1988;Hadi & Ling 1998;Jolliffe 2004). Although any of those variables could be taken as a surrogate for the whole set (Thisted 1980), a simple scaling up of metabolic costs with decreasing heating rates may explain why differences in CT max are associated with exposure duration.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Principle components regression (Manly 1990, Chatterjee and Price 1991, Hadi and Ling 1998, testing for the best model based on stand type and the landscape predictor variables summarised in principle components (Tables 3a, b), showed that the stand type in which the site was situated was important in determining the abundance of almost all species for which the whole model was significant (Tables 4a, b). Pairwise t-tests on stand type showed that the abundances of most species differed between clear-cuts and the other stand types, with the majority of species being more common in older forests.…”
Section: Effects Of Cwd Availability and Landscape Composition On Beementioning
confidence: 99%