As was mentioned in the previous chapter, the measures of goodness of fit are aimed at quantifying how well the OLS regression we have obtained fits the data. The two measures that are usually presented are the standard error of the regression and the .
In the estimation section, we proved that if the regression model contains intercept, then the sum of the residuals are null (expression 2.32), so the average magnitude of the residuals can be expressed by its sample standard deviation, that is to say, by:
If we want to compare the goodness of fit between two models whose endogenous variables are different, the is a more adequate measure than the standard error of the regression, because the does not depend on the magnitude of the variables. In order to obtain this measure, we begin, similarly to the univariate linear model by writing the variance decomposition expression, which divides the sample total variation (TSS) in , into the variation which is explained by the model, or explained sum of squares (ESS), and the variation which is not explained by the model, or residual sum of squares (RSS):
From (2.129) we can deduce that, if the regression explains all the total variation in , then , which implies . However, if the regression explains nothing, then and . Thus, we can conclude that is bounded between 0 and 1, in such a way that values of it close to one imply a good fit of the regression.
Nevertheless, we should be careful in forming conclusions, because the magnitude of the is affected by the kind of data employed in the model. In this sense, when we use time series data and the trends of the endogenous and the explanatory variables are similar, then the is usually large, even if there is no strong relationship between these variables. However, when we work with cross-section data , the tends to be lower, because there is no trend, and also due to the substantial natural variation in individual behavior. These arguments usually lead the researcher to require a higher value of this measure if the regression is carried out with time series data.
The bounds of the we have mentioned do not hold when the estimated model does not contain an intercept. As Patterson (2000) shows, this measure can be larger than one, and even negative. In such cases, we should use an as a measure of fit, which is constructed in a similar way as the , but where neither nor are calculated by using the variables in deviations, that is to say:
In practice, very often several regressions are estimated with the same endogenous variable, and then we want to compare them according to their goodness of fit. For this end, the is not valid, because it never decreases when we add a new explanatory variable. This is due to the mathematical properties of the optimization which underly the LS procedure. In this sense, when we increase the number of regressors, the objective function decreases or stays the same, but never increases. Using (2.130), we can improve the by adding variables to the regression, even if the new regressors do not explain anything about .
In order to avoid this behavior, we compute the so-called adjusted as:
Given that does not vary when we add a new regressor, we must focus on the numerator of (2.132). When a new variable is added to the set of regressors, then increases, and both and decrease, so we must find out how fast each of them decrease. If the decrease of is less than that of , then increases, while it decreases if the reduction of is less than that of . The and are usually presented in the softwar.
The relationship between and is given by:
With respect to the , there is an inverse relationship between it and : if increases, then decreases, and vice versa.
Finally, we should note that these measures should not be used if
we are comparing regressions which have a different endogenous
variable, even if they are based on the same set of data (for
example, and ). Moreover, when we want to evaluate an
estimated model, other statistics, together with these measures of
fit, must be calculated. These usually refer to the maintenance of
the classical assumptions of the MLRM.