2

I have run bivariate analysis predicting cholesterol and iron from gender and age. The coefficient of gender is $-0.57$ (male=1, female=0) and the coefficient of age is $0.5$. Now I am wondering how one can interpret these coefficients?

gung - Reinstate Monica
  • 132,789
  • 81
  • 357
  • 650
LoveStat
  • 45
  • 5
  • 1
    So you have 1 model w/ 2 DVs, not 2 models w/ 1 DV each, is that correct? Can you post your output? – gung - Reinstate Monica Jun 26 '17 at 18:04
  • Refer to https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/215155/how-to-read-the-output-from-manova For interpretations, use https://stats.idre.ucla.edu/stata/dae/multivariate-regression-analysis/ – KarthikS Jan 27 '18 at 00:07

1 Answers1

2

When generating a multivariate regression model, each term's coefficient pertains to its main effect when controlling for the effect of the other coefficients. In your described case of modeling cholesterol (continuous) with respect to age (continuous) and gender(categorical), a coefficient of .5 for age means that controlling for (this is different than ignoring) gender, for every year older an individual is, their cholesterol level increases by .5.

Since your intercept is "female" for your gender variable, a coefficient of -.57 indicates that controlling for age, males have .57 lower cholesterol than females on average.
If you're having a hard time with the controlling for vs. ignoring concept, I'd recommend reading through this answer.

Edit: User has since changed and/or clarified their question

Connor
  • 76
  • 13
  • 1
    thanks for the comment. But here I have two dependent variables. And these are the coefficients of multivariate regression and not univariate regression. "Since your intercept is "female" for your gender variable, a coefficient of -.57 indicates that controlling for age, males have .57 lower cholesterol than females on average." this interpretation is for univariate analysis when I have just cholesterol as DV. – LoveStat Jun 26 '17 at 17:30
  • Ah, I've edited your original question to reflect the now clarified intention. – Connor Jun 26 '17 at 17:39