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: RE: panel data fixed vs random
From
Nick Cox <[email protected]>
To
[email protected]
Subject
Re: st: RE: panel data fixed vs random
Date
Sun, 3 Feb 2013 22:22:13 +0000
0.0552 is not less than 0.05, even though 0.0052 is in this context a
little deal.
Nick
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 10:07 PM, olorunfemi sola <[email protected]> wrote:
> Pietro,
> In your first result the prob>chi2 value is not known. But in your second result it was given to be 0.0552.
> which is less than
> 0.05 (i.e significant) so you can use fixed effect. I think you can equally use Breusch and Pagan Lagrangian Multiplier test for random effects to know if truly it is not okay. I think others are listening to correct us if this position is not right.
>
>
>
>
>
> ***********************************************************************
> SOLA OLORUNFEMI Ph.D
> SENIOR LECTURER
> DEAPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS
> ADEKUNLE AJASIN UNIVERSITY
> AKUNGBA AKOKO
> ONDO STATE NIGERIA
> official e-mail: [email protected]
> TEL NO +234 803 581 0893
>
> **********************************************************************
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: PIETRO MASCI <[email protected]>
> To: statalist <[email protected]>
> Sent: Saturday, 2 February 2013, 8:09
> Subject: st: RE: panel data fixed vs random
>
> Hi
>
> i am using a panel data and run fixed effects and stored and random effects and stored to perform the hausman test.
> when i use
> hausman fix random
> i get the following output:
>
> Note: the rank of the differenced variance matrix (2) does not equal the number of coefficients
> being tested (4); be sure this is what you expect, or there may be problems computing
> the test. Examine the output of your estimators for anything unexpected and possibly
> consider scaling your variables so that the coefficients are on a similar scale.
>
> ---- Coefficients ----
> | (b) (B) (b-B) sqrt(diag(V_b-V_B))
> | fix random Difference S.E.
> -------------+----------------------------------------------------------------
> Penetratio~2 | -83456.95 -29177.79 -54279.16 .
> GastosSaud~a | .6067533 -4.087394 4.694147 .
> MortHomicp~b | 4.54167 65.12774 -60.58607 .
> interinsfi~a | .238441 .3677846 -.1293436 .
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> b = consistent under Ho and Ha; obtained from xtreg
> B = inconsistent under Ha, efficient under Ho; obtained from xtreg
>
> Test: Ho: difference in coefficients not systematic
>
> chi2(2) = (b-B)'[(V_b-V_B)^(-1)](b-B)
> = -5.80 chi2<0 ==> model fitted on these
> data fails to meet the asymptotic
> assumptions of the Hausman test;
> see suest for a generalized test
>
> If i run the hausman test in the reverse order:
>
> hausman random fix
>
> i get the following output:
>
> Note: the rank of the differenced variance matrix (2) does not equal the number of coefficients
> being tested (4); be sure this is what you expect, or there may be problems computing
> the test. Examine the output of your estimators for anything unexpected and possibly
> consider scaling your variables so that the coefficients are on a similar scale.
>
> ---- Coefficients ----
> | (b) (B) (b-B) sqrt(diag(V_b-V_B))
> | random fix Difference S.E.
> -------------+----------------------------------------------------------------
> Penetratio~2 | -29177.79 -83456.95 54279.16 56513.77
> GastosSaud~a | -4.087394 .6067533 -4.694147 2.920822
> MortHomicp~b | 65.12774 4.54167 60.58607 31.10263
> interinsfi~a | .3677846 .238441 .1293436 .0192787
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> b = consistent under Ho and Ha; obtained from xtreg
> B = inconsistent under Ha, efficient under Ho; obtained from xtreg
>
> Test: Ho: difference in coefficients not systematic
>
> chi2(2) = (b-B)'[(V_b-V_B)^(-1)](b-B)
> = 5.80
> Prob>chi2 = 0.0552.
>
> How do i interpret the test?
> should i reject the fixed effects based on the chisquare of the second output (5.8;0.055)?
> should i transform/scale the variables? use log?
>
>
*
* For searches and help try:
* http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search
* http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/resources/statalist-faq/
* http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/