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: twostep option heckman
From
Fernando Rios Avila <[email protected]>
To
[email protected]
Subject
Re: st: twostep option heckman
Date
Wed, 27 Nov 2013 15:18:22 -0500
Hi Chiara,
Keep in mind that the MLE estimates assume the errors from the probit
and ols are simultaneously normal. Whereas the twostep one relaxes
this assumption. As far as I know, mle is more efficient, but twostep
is consistent.
Hope this help.
HTH
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Chiara Mussida <[email protected]> wrote:
> dear all,
> if the heckman model for selection does not converge (not concave) the
> option twostep allows getting consistent mle estimates. Are these
> estimates reliable even if, as said, the model without the option
> twostep does not converge?
> Thanks for any kind of clarification.
> Best
> chiara
>
> --
> Chiara Mussida
> Assistant Professor
> Department of Economics and Social Sciences,
> Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore,
> Piacenza (Italy)
>
> *
> * 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/
*
* 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/