Statistical Methods Atlas
Atlas › Predict & Explain › Multiple Linear Regression

Multiple Linear Regression

Models a continuous outcome from several predictors at once, giving each predictor's unique contribution — the workhorse of survey-based management research.

Predict & ExplainMultivariate also known as: OLS regression, Multiple OLS

✓ When to use

  • One continuous outcome and two or more predictors (continuous or dummy-coded).
  • You want each predictor's effect holding the others constant, or the best linear prediction of Y.
  • Testing theory-driven models: do autonomy and feedback predict engagement over and above tenure?

✗ When NOT to use

  • Binary/ordinal/count outcomes — logistic/ordinal/Poisson regression.
  • Severe multicollinearity among predictors (VIF > 10) — combine, drop, or use ridge.
  • More predictors than cases can support.
  • Nested/clustered data — mixed models; time-series outcomes — models with autocorrelation.

Data requirements

Dependent / outcome variableOne continuous variable.
Independent / grouping variableTwo or more predictors; categorical ones entered as dummy variables (k − 1 dummies).
DesignOne sample; independent observations.
Sample size guidanceOld rules: ≥ 10–15 cases per predictor; better: power analysis on expected f² (e.g., f² = .15, 5 predictors, power .80 → N ≈ 92).

Assumptions

Hypotheses

H₀ — Model-level: all slopes are zero (R² = 0). Predictor-level: βj = 0 given the other predictors.
H₁ — Model-level: at least one slope is non-zero. Predictor-level: βj ≠ 0.

The concept

OLS finds the weights that minimize squared prediction errors using all predictors jointly. Each coefficient bj is the expected change in Y for a one-unit change in Xj holding the other predictors constant — a 'unique contribution' logic that makes multiple regression the standard tool for statistical control.

Standardized betas allow rough comparison of predictor importance on a common scale; squared semi-partial correlations give each predictor's unique slice of R². Adjusted R² corrects the optimism of adding predictors. Two different projects — explanation (theory-driven, enter variables by design) and prediction (maximize out-of-sample accuracy, use validation) — should not be mixed casually; avoid mechanical stepwise selection for explanatory work.

Worked example

Predicting work engagement (1–7) from autonomy, supervisor feedback, and tenure among 214 employees.

Result: R² = .31, F(3, 210) = 31.4, p < .001. Autonomy β = .38 (p < .001) and feedback β = .21 (p = .002) are unique predictors; tenure β = .06 (p = .34) adds nothing beyond them.

How to run it

model <- lm(engagement ~ autonomy + feedback + tenure, data = df)
summary(model)
confint(model)

car::vif(model)                     # multicollinearity
par(mfrow = c(2,2)); plot(model)    # diagnostics

library(effectsize)
standardize_parameters(model)       # standardized betas

Interpreting the output

APA-style reporting

Multiple regression showed that autonomy, feedback, and tenure jointly predicted engagement, R² = .31, F(3, 210) = 31.4, p < .001. Autonomy (β = .38, p < .001) and feedback (β = .21, p = .002) contributed uniquely, whereas tenure did not (β = .06, p = .335).

Common mistakes

Related methods

Simple Linear RegressionOne predictorHierarchical RegressionBlocks entered in stepsModeration AnalysisInteraction termsMediation AnalysisIndirect pathwaysBinary Logistic RegressionBinary outcome
← Simple Linear RegressionHierarchical Regression →