Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
In political science research these days, the R 2 is out of fashion. A chorus of our best methodologists sounds notes of caution, at varying degrees of pitch. Berry and Feldman (1985, 15) remark in their popular regression monograph: “A researcher should be careful to recognize the limitations of R 2 as a measure of goodness of fit.” In their more general statistics text, Hanushek and Jackson (1977, 59) claim that “one must be extremely cautious in interpreting the R 2 value for an estimation and particularly in comparing R 2 values for models that have been estimated with different data sets.” Perhaps the most pointed attack comes from Achen (1982, 61), who argues that the R 2 “measures nothing of serious importance.” His contention is that it should be abandoned, and the standard error of the regression (SEE) substituted as a goodness-of-fit measure. Developing these lines of inquiry further, King (1986) provides the latest set of criticisms. Accordingly, “In most practical political science situations, it makes little sense to use the R 2 ” (King 1986, 669). And, concerning the “proportion of variance explained” definition more particularly, “it is not clear how this interpretation adds meaning to political analyses.” (King 1986, 678).
Lewis‐Beck et al. (Mon,) studied this question.