Notice: On April 23, 2014, Statalist moved from an email list to a forum, based at statalist.org.
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: st: Heteroskedastic Probit Model
From
Maarten buis <[email protected]>
To
[email protected]
Subject
Re: st: Heteroskedastic Probit Model
Date
Thu, 22 Apr 2010 02:54:31 -0700 (PDT)
--- On Thu, 22/4/10, Mustafa Brahim wrote:
> 1) I understand that runing hetprob procedure adjusts the
> estimates and standard errors and therefore corrects for
> heteroskedasticity? is this correct?
That is true only in a very specific sense. Remember that
the dependent variable is latent, so it is not directly
observed. The errorterm is the difference between a
predicted value and a latent variable. The
heteroskedasticity means that the variance of this error
term changes over some of the variables. Notice that our
data contains extremely little information on this
heteroskedasticity, so most of the information is comming
from your assumptions (primarily functional form
assumptions).
So, when should you use -hetprob-? When you have a very
strong theoretical argument for these assumptions. Given
that you started your question with the statement: " I
included all variables in the -het( )- option because I am
not sure which one may be causing the problem of
heteroskedasticity." I conclude that you do not have such
a theory, and should thus not use -hetprob-.
Hope this helps,
Maarten
--------------------------
Maarten L. Buis
Institut fuer Soziologie
Universitaet Tuebingen
Wilhelmstrasse 36
72074 Tuebingen
Germany
http://www.maartenbuis.nl
--------------------------
*
* For searches and help try:
* http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search
* http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
* http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/