Statalist


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date index][Thread index]

Re: RE : Heteroskedasticity and fixed effects (was: st: RE: Re: Weak instruments)


From   Richard Williams <Richard.A.Williams.5@ND.edu>
To   statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu, statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu
Subject   Re: RE : Heteroskedasticity and fixed effects (was: st: RE: Re: Weak instruments)
Date   Thu, 17 Jul 2008 09:41:33 -0500

At 07:22 AM 7/17/2008, Maarten buis wrote:
A final note, though you will probably already know it as it is (or
should be) in any intro stats book: Do not test for heteroskedasticity
before you have looked at the functional form of the effects of your
predictors.
I might have a slightly different take: If a test for hetero comes up positive, don't just assume that means that you should use wls or robust standard errors or whatever. Other problems in model specification could be affecting your hetero test, e.g. you need to include interaction terms or squared terms or whatever. The advice you sometimes hear that hetero isn't that big of a deal is a bit misleading, I think, because hetero may be a byproduct of other problems in model specification.

Anyway, one way or another, your goal is to get the right functional form, and a positive hetero test may indicate that you haven't achieved that yet.


-------------------------------------------
Richard Williams, Notre Dame Dept of Sociology
OFFICE: (574)631-6668, (574)631-6463
HOME: (574)289-5227
EMAIL: Richard.A.Williams.5@ND.Edu
WWW: http://www.nd.edu/~rwilliam

*
* 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/




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