Trashball: A Logistic Regression Classroom Activity

Figures & data

Figure 1. Narrow/Deep (Left) and Wide/Shallow (Right) orientation of trash can.

Figure 2. Minitab Dialog Box for Binary Logistic Regression.

Table 1(a). Cross tabulation of gender by orientation of target.

	Gender
	Male	Female	Total
Narrow Target	9	12	21
Wide Target	9	12	21
Total	18	24	42

Table 1(b). Cross tabulation of orientation by distance from target.

	Shot Distance (in feet)
	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	Total
Narrow Target	5	0	5	0	5	2	4	0	21
Wide Target	1	4	1	5	0	4	0	6	21
Total	6	4	6	5	5	6	4	6	42

Table 1(c). Cross tabulation of gender by distance from target.

	Shot Distance (in feet)
	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	Total
Male	2	2	3	2	2	3	2	2	18
Female	4	2	3	3	3	3	2	4	24
Total	6	4	6	5	5	6	4	6	42

Figure 3. ShotMade versus distance between the thrower and the trash can. Jitter is added to the points to show the repeated observations. The Lowess curve is overlaid.

Figure 4. Residuals vs. Distance from the linear regression model of ShotMade with distance (with jitter).

Figure 5. The fitted linear and logistic regression models. Jitter is included in the observed data points.

Table 2. Observed proportion and modeled probabilities by orientation and distance.

Observed Proportion Logistic Probability	Shot Distance (in feet)
	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12
Wide/Shallow Target	1.00 0.895		0.60 0.659		0.20 0.305	0.00 0.173	0.25 0.090
Narrow/Deep Target	1.00 0.989	1.00 0.976	1.00 0.951	0.80 0.903		0.75 0.677		0.33 0.322

Table

C1: ID #	C2: ShotMade (1=yes)	C3: Gender (0=F)	C4: Orient (0=Narrow)	C5: Dist (in feet)
1		0	1	5
1		0	0	7
1		0	1	9
1		0	0	11
2		1	1	5
2		1	0	7
2		1	1	9
2		1	0	11
3		0	1	6
3		0	0	8
3		0	1	10
3		0	0	12
4		1	1	6
4		1	0	8
4		1	1	10
4		1	0	12
5		0	0	5
5		0	1	7
5		0	0	9
5		0	1	11
6		1	0	5
6		1	1	7
6		1	0	9
6		1	1	11
7		0	0	6
7		0	1	8
7		0	0	10
7		0	1	12
8		1	0	6
8		1	1	8
8		1	0	10
8		1	1	12