3

I know that when we standardize a predictor, "one unit change" becomes one standard deviation in the predictor, but what if we only center the data on the mean (i.e. only subtract all values by the mean) ?

  • edit below: bounty

This example is from Winter (2019: 139):

mutate(SER_c = SER - mean(SER, na.rm = T)
term  estimate
intercept 0.66
SER_c     0.11
POSVerb   0.72
SER_c:POSVerb 0.50

Obs: SER is a continuous predictor and POSVerb is a categorical predictor with two levels (0: Noun, 1: Verb)

The author concludes the following: "POSVerb is the difference between nouns and verbs for words with average SER, rather than some arbitrary 0". All right, that makes sense. The intercept should be, then, the value of the outcome variable for the mean of SER. Ok.

But, still, what does one-unit change in SER mean? If it wasn't centered, I'd say "one unit change in SER implies + 0.11 points to the outcome variable for the noun category", but I now that the intercept means the value at SER mean, how do I interpret this?

this post was helpful, but not enough. Thanks in advance!

  • edit : bounty:

Hello, again. Now I have a follow-up question:

  • 1: My model has a 2-level categorical predictor and a continuous one centered around its mean (no interaction). Should I say "one-unit change in the continuons predictor" or "one-unit change in the mean of the continous predictor" adds X to the mean of each categorical level?
  • 3
    Centering alone does not change the interpretation of the non-intercept parameters. – BigBendRegion Sep 07 '22 at 19:15
  • I am confused by your provided notation: since POSVerb does not appear in the command mutate(SER_c = SER - mean(SER, na.rm = T): how can an estimate of its effect on the dependent variable be in the output? Also why is there no effect of SER on the dependent variable in the output? – Alexis Sep 07 '22 at 19:21
  • @Alexis , the model is: lm(OutComeVariable ~ SER * POS). SER is continuos and POS is a categorical with 2 predictors which are dummy-coded: 1: Noun, 0: Verb), the mutate function was how the author centered SER into SER_c , is it clearer now? – Larissa Cury Sep 07 '22 at 19:44
  • In a science experiment you could measure temperature in degrees Kelvin, or recenter those to degrees Centigrade, or even recenter them to a difference relative to any reference temperature you like. Would that change the meaning or magnitude of one degree? – whuber Sep 07 '22 at 20:49
  • @LarissaCury I think editing a question to add a second part, awarding a bounty, after accepting an answer is gauche. You should probably ask a different question. – AdamO Dec 14 '22 at 19:28
  • Regarding interpretation of coefficients, I am on team "1-unit difference" rather than "1-unit change". The model is for expected response, so - regardless of other adjustments - you would say it's a "expected difference comparing groups differing by 1-unit in $X$ having the same value of $W$" - $W$ being the other adjustment. – AdamO Dec 14 '22 at 19:30
  • Counter question, what does SER mean? – Sextus Empiricus Dec 14 '22 at 22:52
  • Oh, @AdamO , I'm sorry, I thought that it was good practice. I thought that if I created a new one, that'd be a duplicate. Thank you for the note, I won't do that again. Sextus, I got this example from a book (Winter, 2019), the author sees the effect of sensory experience ratings (SER) on iconicity depending on POS (part of speech, verb or noun) – Larissa Cury Dec 15 '22 at 10:47

2 Answers2

3

As mentioned in the article that you linked, centering a feature does not impact its scale, so it should not change the interpretation of your model coefficients.

For example, consider the following linear model, where $x_1$ is continuous and $\delta_1$ is a dummy variable {0, 1}:

$$=B_0 + B_1x_1 + B_2\delta_1 + B_3 x_1 \delta_1 + u$$ In the equation above, the partial effect of $x_1$ on $y$ is

$$ \frac{\Delta y}{\Delta x_1} = B_1 + B_3\delta_1 $$ So, one unit of change in $x_1$ leads to an increase of $B1+B3$ in $y$ if $d_1 = 1$ and an increase of $B_1$ otherwise.

Suppose that we now center $x_1$ around its mean $\bar{x_1}$, let's call it $\hat{x}_1$, with the following operation:

$$ \hat{x_1} = x_1 - \bar{x_1} $$

Notice that we can replace $x_1$ in the initial model by $\hat{x_1} + \bar{x_1}$, such that $$ =B_0 + B_1(\hat{x_1} + \bar{x_1}) + B_2\delta_1 + B_3 (\hat{x_1} + \bar{x_1}) \delta_1 + u $$ Which you can expand to

$$ =B_0 + B_1\hat{x_1} + B_1\bar{x_1} + B_2\delta_1 + B_3\hat{x_1}\delta_1 + B_3\bar{x_1}\delta_1 + u $$ So now, the partial effect of $\hat{x_1}$ on $y$ is:

$$ \frac{\Delta y}{\Delta \hat{x_1}} = B_1 + B_3\delta_1 $$

Which is the same as before. In your particular case:

$$ \frac{\Delta y}{\Delta SER_c} = \frac{\Delta y}{\Delta SER} = 0.11 + 0.50 POSVerb $$

In the case of noun ($POSVerb = 0$) one unit change of $SER$ or $SER_c$ yields a 0.11 increase to the outcome. In the case of a verb ($POSVerb = 1$), then one unit of change in $SER$ or $SER_c$ yields a 0.11 + 0.50 = 0.61 increase to the outcome.

Hope this helps!

privard
  • 146
  • Can you expand your answer to address the interaction term in Larissa Cury's question? – Alexis Sep 07 '22 at 19:46
  • Thanks for your comment @Alexis! I would love to elaborate, but I wasn't able to track down the source. Googling for Winter 2019 didn't bring anything up.

    From what I can understand of Larissa's problem, I'd say the statement "one unit change in SER implies +0.11 points to the outcome variable for the noun category" is still valid, but having the full source would probably help provide a richer interpretation.

    – privard Sep 07 '22 at 19:58
  • thank you very much, @privard for your answer and Alexis for the suggestion! What do you need, @privard? I may edit the post, btw the book's reference is Winter (2019), "Statistics for Linguistics: An introduction using R" and the chapter in question is chapter 8 page 139 – Larissa Cury Sep 07 '22 at 20:10
  • And yet, multiplicative interaction effects mean that there is no independent effect of the interacting variables, and your answer applies to an independent predictor. It does a good job, but that question was about a different model. – Alexis Sep 07 '22 at 20:24
  • 1
    Ah, yes I get your point now @Alexis, thanks. Let me try to adapt the answer to include interaction effects. – privard Sep 07 '22 at 20:37
  • @privard , if you don't mind, would you also go over the last step? from which you've moved from the centered equation to the slope equation? I didn't follow that, I'm sorry. Also, if you want to elaborate on the interaction equation, as suggested by Alexis, let me know what you need to do that, i'd really appreaciate. Thank you in advance! :) – Larissa Cury Sep 07 '22 at 20:37
  • 1
    @Alexis, here's an expanded answer with interaction terms. Hopefully, I didn't make any mistakes, but I would appreciate a quick review. Thanks for the feedback! – privard Sep 07 '22 at 21:13
  • @privard Wow!!! I can't thank you enough, thanks for taking the time to write such a detailed answer, I really appreciate it! One last question, "for nous, one unit change of SER or SERc yields a 0.11 increase to the outcome." The outcome is the value of Y at the mean of SER, than it would add 0.61 to its MEAN, right? If the intercept is 0.66, than it means that the Y-value at SER's mean is 0.66 for nouns, than one unit change in SER (for nouns) would add 0.11 to what exactly? (I'm having some trouble trying to formulate this final interpretation) – Larissa Cury Sep 07 '22 at 21:45
  • @privard , oh, another thing: I suppose that the equation left with the mean parameters (b0 + b1Xmean + b3Xmeanδ) is constant, as you've mentioned before with (b + mXmean)...but, why is that? – Larissa Cury Sep 07 '22 at 22:10
  • +1 Rock out! (Larissa Cury, you can also upvote this answer as well as accept it, by clicking the up-arrow above the check mark.) – Alexis Sep 07 '22 at 22:30
  • 2
    Thanks @Alexis!

    @LarissaCury I think the best way to intuit the full model is to see as two separate models: 1 model for nouns and 1 model for verbs.

    The model for nouns is y = 0.66 + 0.11 SER_c = 0.66 + 0.11 (SER - mean(SER)) The model for verbs is y = 1.38 + 0.61 SER_c = 1.38 + 0.61 (SER - mean(SER))

    So, when SER = mean(SER), y = 0.66 for nouns, and y = 1.38 for verbs. Then any changes to SER will result in changes of y around mean(SER).

    – privard Sep 07 '22 at 23:13
  • Thank you VERY much, @privard ! You REALLY helped me, and thanks Alexis for the suggestion. Would you mind helping me on how to report the results? I've opened a post for that here: https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/588164/how-do-we-report-a-regression-with-categorical-continouns-interaction – Larissa Cury Sep 08 '22 at 13:01
  • Hello again, @privard , I really hope you get this. I was reporting another model now, and I got a bit stuck. "Then any changes to SER will result in changes of y around mean(SER)". My model has a 2-level categorical predictor and a continuous one centered around its mean (no int), just like the book's. Should I say "one-unit change in the continuons predictor" or "one-unit change in the mean of the continous predictor" adds a 0.11 to the categorical levels? – Larissa Cury Dec 11 '22 at 13:00
1

I know that when we standardize a predictor, "one unit change" becomes one standard deviation in the predictor, but what if we only center the data on the mean (i.e. only subtract all values by the mean) ?

If you don't standardize then one unit change will relate to whatever the units are that are used to measure the predictor variable.

For instance if the predictor is temperature measured in Kelvin, then on unit change means an increase by one Kelvin.

In your example you have 'sensory experience ratings' as predictor and one-unit change will relate to whatever the scale is used to obtain those ratings.

Possibly your sensory experience rating is the one from

Juhasz, B.J., Yap, M.J. Sensory experience ratings for over 5,000 mono- and disyllabic words. Behav Res 45, 160–168 (2013). https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-012-0242-9

Please rate each word on a 1 to 7 scale, with 1 meaning the word evokes no sensory experience for you, 4 meaning the word evokes a moderate sensory experience, and 7 meaning the word evokes a strong sensory experience.

In that case the ratings are based on averages of questionnaires with a 7 point scale.

The meaning of one-unit is the change of the score on that questionnaire by one.

  • hi, @Sextux Empiricus, thanks! but how could we expand that to non-Likert-scale results, tho I'm also a linguistic as Winter, I'm from a completly different area, I've never worked with this 'iconicity' measure. I usially work with language exams and proficiency, for example. Right now I have proficiency as a predictor (exam from 0 to 120) and I've centered that. I have SCORE ~ Proficiency_c * type of exam (A or B) – Larissa Cury Dec 19 '22 at 21:10