Talk:Dummy variable (statistics)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Statistics (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Statistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of statistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page or join the discussion.

C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Mathematics (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject Mathematics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Mathematics rating:
C Class
Low Importance
 Field:  Probability and statistics

Unfortunate term[edit]

The term "dummy variable" is unfortunate. That term is very appropriate when used to refer to bound variables. Its use in any other way detracts from that. Michael Hardy (talk) 05:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't reflect common usage. "Bound variable" is the more common term for the latter concept, at least in computer science. David-Sarah Hopwood (talk) 14:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
"Bound variable" is NOT the more common term for the latter concept in mathematics at all. In the expression
any mathematician will understand what you're talking about it you say n is a "dummy" or a "dummy variable", but if you refer to a "bound variable" they'll understand you only if they're familiar with conventions used by those doing research in mathematical logic. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Dummy variable is the terminology used in statistic and econometric courses. Since the title of the article refers to statistice, computer science has no relevency in this areaP0PP4B34R732 (talk) 19:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Dr. Pagan's comment on this article[edit]

Dr. Pagan has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

I think this is well done. Clear and the examples good. I think there are some issues in using these in time series as dependent variables. Models such as logit and probit assume that they independent over time but decisions re retirement are not like that, as is affiliation with a political party. These are likely to have inertia as so a lack of independence.

The main problem I think is that there is a bit of repetition e.g. the dummy variable trap is explained twice in succeeding paragraphs. I also think it better to say “Assume” rather than “Say”. However, this is a personal preference. The statement “To find if the mean salaries of the teachers in the North and South are statistically different from that of teachers in the West” seems to suggest a joint test rather than the single hypotheses tested in the text. The references seem to have a lot missing. Mention is made of pdf’s but where does one get them? I clicked on them but nothing happened. Ditto with lecture notes.

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

Dr. Pagan has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:

  • Reference : Adrian pagan & Don Harding, 2006. "The Econometric Analysis of Constructed Binary Time Series. Working paper #1," NCER Working Paper Series 1, National Centre for Econometric Research.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 14:35, 19 May 2016 (UTC)