Notice: On April 23, 2014, Statalist moved from an email list to a forum, based at statalist.org.
From | Clive Nicholas <clivelists@googlemail.com> |
To | statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu |
Subject | Re: st: Testing for panel-level heteroskedasticity with xtgls |
Date | Tue, 1 Feb 2011 01:30:48 +0000 |
rado645-bg@yahoo.de wrote: > I am a bit confused from the result I got for a LR test. I want to test about > heteroscedasticity across panels as suggested by the Stata team in their FAQ > section. > > In particular, it is suggested to calculate iterated GLS with only > heteroskedasticity first and save the likelihood. Then to fit the model but > without the heteroscedasticity assumption (though it is not specified if this > second model shall be iterated or it shall be left without this option). > > Below is the result I got. i would like also to ask if my p-value of the test > now indicates that I have heteroscedasticity or actually not? I am confused > because they provide no explanation. Moreover, is it a bad sign to get no output > of estimates for ll(null)? > > > . lrtest hetero . , df(`df') stats > > Likelihood-ratio test LR chi2(16) = 493.43 > (Assumption: . nested in hetero) Prob > chi2 = 0.0000 > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Model | Obs ll(null) ll(model) df AIC BIC > -------------+--------------------------------------------------------------- > . | 367 . -29.55142 29 117.1028 230.3583 > hetero | 367 . 217.1648 46 -342.3296 -162.6829 > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Note: N=Obs used in calculating BIC; see [R] BIC note Going simply by the significance of your LR chi-square statistic in your test, this would appear to support the hypothesis that your IGLS model does have panel-level heteroscedascity. Since this is case, maybe you should switch to fitting an OLS model with panel-corrected standard errors (-xtpcse-) to deal with this issue? -- Clive Nicholas [Please DO NOT mail me personally here, but at <clivenicholas@hotmail.com>. Please respond to contributions I make in a list thread here. Thanks!] "My colleagues in the social sciences talk a great deal about methodology. I prefer to call it style." -- Freeman J. Dyson. * * 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/