Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

2
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for your reply. I realise I hadn't squared the semipartial correlation coefficients before summing them. This solves my 1st problem because the unique variance explained = .241 (sum of the squared semipartial correlations (.029 + -.030 + .216 + .026) and .241 subtracted from .325 = .084, so the predictors shared 8% of explained variance. Thank you for the advice about interpretation as well. $\endgroup$ Commented May 27, 2014 at 20:54
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Adam, I feel that you misread the OP's question and so your answer may be irrelevant. No speach was about partial correlations. And "shared variance" was not thought of as covariance. $\endgroup$ Commented May 28, 2014 at 7:07