Multinomial Logistic Regression

3 or more groups

• Students in Engineering at ECU

1. Persisters – still in the program after 2 years

2. Left in Good Standing (GPA 2.00)

3. Left in Poor Standing (GPA < 2.00)

Predictor Variables

• SAT Scores (Verbal and Quantitative)• ALEKS Scores – calculus readiness• High School GPA• NEO Five-Factor Inventory (5 variables)• Nowicki–Duke Locus of Control (high =

external)

Standardize Predictors

Analyze, Regression, Multinomial Logistic

Ask for a classification table

Output

Case Processing Summary 

NMarginal

Percentage

Groups

Poor 68 26.6%

Good 85 33.2%

Stay 103 40.2%

Valid 256 100.0%

Model Fitting Information

Model

Model Fitting Criteria Likelihood Ratio Tests

-2 Log Likelihood Chi-Square df Sig.

Intercept Only 555.273     

Final 473.253 82.020 20 .000

Pseudo R-Square

Cox and Snell .274

Nagelkerke .310

McFadden .148

Likelihood Ratio Tests

Effect

Model Fitting Criteria

Likelihood Ratio Tests

-2 Log Likelihood of Reduced Model Chi-Square df Sig.

Intercept 488.053 14.800 2 .001ZMSAT 480.010 6.757 2 .034ZVSAT 475.947 2.694 2 .260ZHSGPA 493.748 20.495 2 .000ZALEKS 482.546 9.292 2 .010ZLOC 475.350 2.096 2 .351ZNEOOpen 473.641 .388 2 .824ZNEOC 488.933 15.680 2 .000ZNEOE 473.844 .591 2 .744ZNEOA 473.951 .698 2 .705ZNEON 475.236 1.983 2 .371

k-1 sets of coefficients

• Earlier we designated the reference group to be that with the highest code, the persisters.

• Each of the other two groups will be contrasted with that group.

Groupsa B Std. Error

Wald df Sig. Exp(B)

Poor

Intercept -.734 .212 12.034 1 .001  

ZMSAT -.249 .226 1.215 1 .270 .780

ZVSAT -.049 .217 .051 1 .820 .952

ZHSGPA -.838 .202 17.161 1 .000 .433

ZALEKS -.619 .208 8.833 1 .003 .538

ZLOC -.087 .211 .172 1 .678 .916

ZNEOOpen .125 .204 .373 1 .541 1.133

ZNEOC -.807 .230 12.298 1 .000 .446

ZNEOE .008 .216 .001 1 .972 1.008

ZNEOA -.030 .207 .022 1 .883 .970

ZNEON -.289 .252 1.314 1 .252 .749

Those who left in poor standing versus those who persisted.

Groupsa B Std. Error

Wald df Sig. Exp(B)

Good

Intercept -.109 .159 .468 1 .494  

ZMSAT -.487 .192 6.448 1 .011 .614

ZVSAT .239 .173 1.913 1 .167 1.270

ZHSGPA -.171 .165 1.071 1 .301 .843

ZALEKS -.215 .171 1.573 1 .210 .807

ZLOC .189 .178 1.125 1 .289 1.208

ZNEOOpen .023 .164 .020 1 .888 1.023

ZNEOC -.044 .194 .052 1 .819 .956

ZNEOE .126 .177 .505 1 .477 1.134

ZNEOA -.145 .182 .631 1 .427 .865

  ZNEON -.233 .197 1.392 1 .238 .792

Classification

Observed

Predicted

Poor Good StayPercent Correct

Poor 44 12 12 64.7%

Good 18 34 33 40.0%

Stay 12 19 72 69.9%

Overall Percentage 28.9% 25.4% 45.7% 58.6%

REGWQ

  Variable

Group Conscientiousness HS GPA ALEKS Math SAT

Persisting 33.23A 3.21A 59.82A 583.30A

LGS 32.24A 3.14A 52.34B 554.00B

LPS 28.21B 2.94B 46.28B 552.79B

Note: Within each column, means sharing a superscript are not significantly different from each other. N = 256.

 

A Posteriori Pairwise Comparisons Between Group Means.

Presenting the Results

• Please see the associated document.