In the following tables n is the sample size and k is the number of independent variables. See Autocorrelation for details.
Alpha = .01
Alpha = .05
How can I find DL and DU for n=48 with 4 independent variable
This depends on the alpha value, but if alpha = .05, then the table has values for n=45 and n=50 and you will need to interpolate between these values to get the answer you are looking for. See the following webpage for details abouit interpolation:
How if I want to know the value for n = 665?
See the following webpage>
You will need to interpolate between the values in the table.
Hy charles, can I know how the table of durbin watson for n=204
reply my coment please 🙂
Please see the following website, which contains values for 200 and 210. You will need to interpolate to get the value at 204.
please i have TTF- TIME TO FAILURES values as follows; 28,52,42,8,14,13,47,38,25,12,50,42. How do i know my n and k so to check on DW table for du and dl.
See the following webpage
Please am still waiting for the answer to my question.
If a (one period) auto-correlation adjustment is made, does the adjustment count as an additional k (independent) variable in evaluating DW limits. Thanks
What sort of (one period) auto-correlation adjustment are your referring to? Are you referring to differencing?
If I want to know for n=41, how can I know value
You need to interpolate the values in the table between the entries for 40 and the entries for 45. This is explained on the webpage
Alternatively, you can use the Real Statistics functions DLowerCrit and DUpperCrit
Thank you, Charles!
I appreciate you spending time to have this important table available.
thank you for all the info on this website!
I was wondering where you got those tables from? I noticed that in Durbin & Watson’s paper from 1951 (Testing for serial correlation), they only go up to an N = 100 (and I am particularly interested in higher N’s). Is there another paper that I have been missing?
One source is
thanks for the quick reply! When I click on the link, it required authorization. Do you know if there’s another source I could click on? Thanks again!
Olga, no I don’t.
Thanks for this!
Thank you for your excellent website.
Can I confirm that the k in durbin watson table excludes intercept.
The tables are for the case where there is an intercept, but k does not include the intercept. Thus if k = 2, there are 2 independent variables plus an intercept.
Dear Dr. Zaiontz. I was wondering, how to interpret bounds for Durbin-Watson test (dU, dL) if dU is greater than 2.0. I know that it is an extreme case, but just want to know…
For example, for alpha=0.01 if n=13 and k=8 than dU=3.182, dL=0.090. Then 4-dU=0.818, 4-dL=3.91… Does it mean that between 0.090 and 3.190 test is inconlusive? It is quite strange situation, I know that there is plenty of tests better than Durbin-Watson one, but it is nice to know such details.
Love your website (thank you!) and your nice Slavic surname.
Greetings from Central Europe.
Good to hear someone from Central Europe and thanks for your kind words about the website.
The bounds for the Durbin-Watson test are indeed strange. If the test produces a value between dL and dU, i.e. between .818 and 3.10 in this case, then yes the test is inconclusive.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
RSS - Posts
RSS - Comments