Bookmark and Share

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: Different coefficient magnitudes in ols and 2sls estimation


From   "Nick Cox" <[email protected]>
To   <[email protected]>
Subject   RE: st: RE: Different coefficient magnitudes in ols and 2sls estimation
Date   Thu, 22 Apr 2010 19:07:25 +0100

So, no formal significance test in either case. Thanks for the
clarification. 

Nick 
[email protected] 


-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Sukesh Patro
Sent: 22 April 2010 19:05
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: st: RE: Different coefficient magnitudes in ols and 2sls
estimation

Nick,
The coefficients are 0.20 in OLS and 2.00 in 2SLS. To answer your
question, "significantly smaller" in this context means the referee
thinks that this is different enough to be troubling.
Also, to answer a related question from Kit Baum we did a Hausman test
on Y2 and rejected the exogeneity of Y2. So it seems that 2SLS would
be appropriate. We have not done a Sargan or Hansen test. Will look
into that and post the outcome.
Thanks to both of you for your interest.

SSKP


On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Nick Cox <[email protected]> wrote:
> What precisely does "significantly smaller" mean in this discussion?
> Does "significant" mean here anything other than "surprising to me"? I
> don't have an answer to your question, but as you say clarity is
needed
> here.
> Nick
> [email protected]
*
*   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/


© Copyright 1996–2018 StataCorp LLC   |   Terms of use   |   Privacy   |   Contact us   |   Site index