- #1
- 7,017
- 10,547
Hi All,
I am trying to understand better the tests used to determine the existence of a linear relation between
two variables X,Y. AFAIK, one way of testing the strength of any linear relationship is by computing
##r^2##, where ##r## is the correlation coefficient; this measures the extend to which X determines Y, i.e., the extend to which the value of X contributes to the value of Y.
But then there is a second test, and I am confused as to how it relates to the one above. In this other tst, we do a hypothesis test for the slope of the regression line ## y=mx+b ## , with ## H_0: m=0, H_A: m \neq 0 ##. Are both these tests necessary, or is one used to corroborate the other? Are there situations where one test is preferable to the other?
Thanks.
I am trying to understand better the tests used to determine the existence of a linear relation between
two variables X,Y. AFAIK, one way of testing the strength of any linear relationship is by computing
##r^2##, where ##r## is the correlation coefficient; this measures the extend to which X determines Y, i.e., the extend to which the value of X contributes to the value of Y.
But then there is a second test, and I am confused as to how it relates to the one above. In this other tst, we do a hypothesis test for the slope of the regression line ## y=mx+b ## , with ## H_0: m=0, H_A: m \neq 0 ##. Are both these tests necessary, or is one used to corroborate the other? Are there situations where one test is preferable to the other?
Thanks.