Stata The Stata listserver
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date index][Thread index]

st: RE: Goldfeldt-Quant versus -hettest-


From   "Nick Cox" <n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk>
To   <statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu>
Subject   st: RE: Goldfeldt-Quant versus -hettest-
Date   Tue, 3 Feb 2004 23:58:14 -0000

A Google on "Goldfeld-Quandt Stata" [sic] throws 
up various recipes to try at home. 

Not your question, but I'll put in a plug for 
a user-written plot program called -rdplot-. 

It's no doubt eccentric, but given a choice 
I'd always choose a purpose-driven graph over 
a test statistic with P-value. Of course, you 
can have both. 

Nick 
n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk 

Richard Williams
 
> Various textbooks discuss the use of the Goldfeldt-Quant test for 
> heteroskedasticity.  For those of you who are familiar with 
> it, it is a 
> little clunky, and requires some arbitrary decisions on how 
> to split the 
> data.  Stata, on the other hand, has the nice easy to use -hettest- 
> command, which does the Breusch-Pagan / Cook-Weisberg test for 
> heteroskedasticity, and Stata also offers some other tests.  
> Is there any 
> particular reason I would still prefer GQ given that 
> -hettest- and other 
> options are available?  i.e. are there situations in which GQ is more 
> appropriate or will pick up problems that other tests will 
> not? 

*
*   For searches and help try:
*   http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/res/findit.html
*   http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
*   http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/



© Copyright 1996–2014 StataCorp LP   |   Terms of use   |   Privacy   |   Contact us   |   What's new   |   Site index