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: St: interpret the result of Hausman test
From
John Antonakis <[email protected]>
To
[email protected]
Subject
Re: st: St: interpret the result of Hausman test
Date
Thu, 19 Apr 2012 15:41:55 +0200
Do:
hausman one two, sigmamore
What does that give? If the hausman test is still NPD try:
ivreg2 y (x = z), endog(x)
Also, did you try it in sem as I suggested?
If the p value of the endogeneity test is < .05 then x is endogenous.
However, if your sample is small the test might not have much power (so
I would be worried about endogeneity if < .10). If you have good reason
to believe that x is endogenous then the iv estimator should be retained.
HTH,
J.
__________________________________________
Prof. John Antonakis
Faculty of Business and Economics
Department of Organizational Behavior
University of Lausanne
Internef #618
CH-1015 Lausanne-Dorigny
Switzerland
Tel ++41 (0)21 692-3438
Fax ++41 (0)21 692-3305
http://www.hec.unil.ch/people/jantonakis
Associate Editor
The Leadership Quarterly
__________________________________________
On 19.04.2012 10:39, Hoang Dinh Quoc wrote:
Dear Prof. Antonakis,
Thank you very much for your quick support.
I followed your suggestion:
"reg y x
est store one
ivregress 2sls y (x=z)
est store two
hausman one two"
And I got this result:
Test: Ho: difference in coefficients not systematic
chi2(1) = (b-B)'[(V_b-V_B)^(-1)](b-B)
= 3.31
Prob>chi2 = 0.0687
(V_b-V_B is not positive definite)
With is result, can I conclude that no endogeneity problem?
Thanks,
Best,
Hoang Dinh Quoc
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of John Antonakis
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 3:23 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: st: St: interpret the result of Hausman test
Hi:
I am not quite sure what you have done here.
If you want to do this "by hand" do an augmented regression:
http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/stat/endogeneity.html
Else, use the -endog- option in the user-written program, ivreg2,
available from ssc (i.e., ssc install ivreg2, replace), e.g. (for
dependent variable y, endogenous regressor x, and instrument z):
ivreg2 y (x = z), endog(x).
Or do the usual hausman test via Stata, e.g.,
reg y x
est store one
ivregress 2sls y (x=z)
est store two
hausman one two
Finally, you can do this in the new Stata command, -sem- using maximum
likelihood:
sem (y<-x) (x<-z), cov(e.y*e.x)
The test of the correlation between the disturbances is the Hausman
test, as we explain in detail here:
Antonakis, J., Bendahan, S., Jacquart, P.,& Lalive, R. (2010). On
making causal claims: A review and recommendations. The Leadership
Quarterly, 21(6). 1086-1120.
http://www.hec.unil.ch/jantonakis/Causal_Claims.pdf
For more basic explanations see:
Antonakis, J., Bendahan, S., Jacquart, P.,& Lalive, R. (submitted).
Causality and endogeneity: Problems and solutions. In D.V. Day (Ed.),
The Oxford Handbook of Leadership and Organizations.
http://www.hec.unil.ch/jantonakis/Causality_and_endogeneity_final.pdf
HTH,
J.
__________________________________________
Prof. John Antonakis
Faculty of Business and Economics
Department of Organizational Behavior
University of Lausanne
Internef #618
CH-1015 Lausanne-Dorigny
Switzerland
Tel ++41 (0)21 692-3438
Fax ++41 (0)21 692-3305
http://www.hec.unil.ch/people/jantonakis
Associate Editor
The Leadership Quarterly
__________________________________________
On 19.04.2012 10:14, Hoang Dinh Quoc wrote:
> Dear Statalist members,
>
> I would like to ask you a question regarding the result of a Hausman
test.
>
> My question is, with this result, if I conclude that I have no problem of
> endogeneity; in other words, I have no endogenous variable?
>
> I followed these steps:
> 1. regress (OLS) to get a residual
> 2. predict weak_rest1
> 3. regress (OLS) using weak_rest1
> 4. regress 2sls using IV
>
> Here is the result of the t test of the residual:
> . test weak_res1
>
> ( 1) weak_res1 = 0
>
> F( 1, 355) = 3.34
> Prob> F = 0.0686
>
> With is result, can I conclude that no endogeneity problem?
>
> Thank you very much.
>
> Best regards,
> Hoang Dinh Quoc
>
>
>
>
> *
> * 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/
*
* 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/
*
* 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/
*
* 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/