<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Interpreting PLS regression coefficients for a binary categorical variable in Discussions</title>
    <link>https://community.jmp.com/t5/Discussions/Interpreting-PLS-regression-coefficients-for-a-binary/m-p/266246#M51848</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;I used Fit Model with the Partial Least Squares personality to create a model for a continuous dependent variable. Explanatory variables include several continuous variables and a categorical variable with two options, A or B. I understand that option A and B are treated as separate dummy variables. When I run the fitting, the regression coefficient for option A is about -0.4 and the regression coefficient for option B is a similar value. How could this be? I assumed that the coefficient for option A was determined relative to option B, and expected the two coefficients to be different, at the very least.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 May 2020 21:12:00 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>blumarble</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2020-05-12T21:12:00Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Interpreting PLS regression coefficients for a binary categorical variable</title>
      <link>https://community.jmp.com/t5/Discussions/Interpreting-PLS-regression-coefficients-for-a-binary/m-p/266246#M51848</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I used Fit Model with the Partial Least Squares personality to create a model for a continuous dependent variable. Explanatory variables include several continuous variables and a categorical variable with two options, A or B. I understand that option A and B are treated as separate dummy variables. When I run the fitting, the regression coefficient for option A is about -0.4 and the regression coefficient for option B is a similar value. How could this be? I assumed that the coefficient for option A was determined relative to option B, and expected the two coefficients to be different, at the very least.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 May 2020 21:12:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.jmp.com/t5/Discussions/Interpreting-PLS-regression-coefficients-for-a-binary/m-p/266246#M51848</guid>
      <dc:creator>blumarble</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2020-05-12T21:12:00Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Interpreting PLS regression coefficients for a binary categorical variable</title>
      <link>https://community.jmp.com/t5/Discussions/Interpreting-PLS-regression-coefficients-for-a-binary/m-p/266363#M51877</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;The parameterization of the linear predictor in JMP is such that the coefficients for a categorical term must sum to zero. Here is an example of a PLS regression using the Fitness data set. The dependent variable is Oxy. Notice that the two-level predictor Sex has coefficients of equal magnitude but opposite sign.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;span class="lia-inline-image-display-wrapper lia-image-align-inline" image-alt="Capture.JPG" style="width: 259px;"&gt;&lt;img src="https://community.jmp.com/t5/image/serverpage/image-id/23955iF58E2BA4888701EE/image-size/large?v=v2&amp;amp;px=999" role="button" title="Capture.JPG" alt="Capture.JPG" /&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Is that what you see in your case?&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 May 2020 12:40:49 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.jmp.com/t5/Discussions/Interpreting-PLS-regression-coefficients-for-a-binary/m-p/266363#M51877</guid>
      <dc:creator>Mark_Bailey</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2020-05-13T12:40:49Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Interpreting PLS regression coefficients for a binary categorical variable</title>
      <link>https://community.jmp.com/t5/Discussions/Interpreting-PLS-regression-coefficients-for-a-binary/m-p/266426#M51894</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi Mark, thanks for your reply. My two-level predictor actually has coefficients -0.3160 and -0.2881. I've centered and scaled my data and also double checked that there were only two levels for this predictor in the whole dataset.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 May 2020 15:37:39 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.jmp.com/t5/Discussions/Interpreting-PLS-regression-coefficients-for-a-binary/m-p/266426#M51894</guid>
      <dc:creator>blumarble</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2020-05-13T15:37:39Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Interpreting PLS regression coefficients for a binary categorical variable</title>
      <link>https://community.jmp.com/t5/Discussions/Interpreting-PLS-regression-coefficients-for-a-binary/m-p/266438#M51896</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I don't know. Maybe another member has the answer.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Otherwise, contact JMP Technical Support (&lt;A href="mailto:support@jmp.com" target="_blank"&gt;support@jmp.com&lt;/A&gt;). Please reply with their answer if you do seek their help.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 May 2020 15:41:35 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.jmp.com/t5/Discussions/Interpreting-PLS-regression-coefficients-for-a-binary/m-p/266438#M51896</guid>
      <dc:creator>Mark_Bailey</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2020-05-13T15:41:35Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

