Notice: On March 31, it was **announced** that Statalist is moving from an email list to a **forum**. The old list will shut down at the end of May, and its replacement, **statalist.org** is already up and running.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

From |
Sami Alameen <samialameen@gmail.com> |

To |
statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu |

Subject |
Re: st: Robust version of the Hausman test... contradicting results |

Date |
Tue, 12 Jul 2011 18:27:07 +0300 |

Mari, in: reg redy redx1 redx2 redx3 redx4 mdx1 mdx2 mdx3 mdx4, vce(cluster id) You are testing if Cross-section (id) significant versus common intercept, not versus RE. Also instead of the mdx? that Stata drops you should test if _cons=mdx1=mdx2=mdx3 and so on, because Stata uses a common _cons and make mdx# the difference from that intercept (_cons refers to the dropped category) That's said doesn't mean the result will always be consistent among the two test, but you were testing different thing than you intended. To be in the right direction compare: xtreg y x ..., re est store re xtreg y x..., fe hausman . re to test FE against RE then compare to the Wooldridge's robust stat Good luck On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 3:48 PM, Mari Mari <mari4i@yahoo.com> wrote: > Dear Statalist, > > I am deciding whether to use a FE or RE model, based on the results of a robust > version of the Hausman test. I am using Stata 11. Here is what I did for my > balanced panel. > > * Robust version of the Hausman test (Wooldridge 2002) > quietly xtreg y x1 x2 x3 x4, re > by id: gen T=_N > gen theta=1-sqrt(e(sigma_e)^2/(e(sigma_e)^2+ T*e(sigma_u)^2)) > foreach x in y x1 x2 x3 x4 { > by id: egen mean`x' = mean(`x') > generate md`x' = `x' - mean`x' > generate red`x' = `x' - theta*mean`x' > } > quietly reg redy redx1 redx2 redx3 redx4 mdx1 mdx2 mdx3 mdx4, vce(cluster id) > test mdx1 mdx2 mdx3 mdx4 > ( 1) mdx1 = 0 > ( 2) mdx2 = 0 > ( 3) mdx3 = 0 > ( 4) mdx4 = 0 > F( 4, 25) = 11.72 > Prob > F = 0.0000 > > This suggests I should use FE > > _________________________________________________________________________ > > * Robust version of the Hausman test (Schaffer and Stillman, 2006) > quietly xtreg y x1 x2 x3 x4, re cluster(id) > xtoverid > Sargan-Hansen statistic 5.885 Chi-sq(4) P-value = 0.2079 > > This suggests I should use RE > > > Given the tests are providing opposite results, do you have any suggestion on > how to proceed? > > Thanks! > > Maria > > > * > * 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/

**References**:**st: Robust version of the Hausman test... contradicting results***From:*Mari Mari <mari4i@yahoo.com>

- Prev by Date:
**Re: st: Obtaining a list of variables, their descriptions and their labels** - Next by Date:
**re: st: AW: Finding the Most Common Combinations** - Previous by thread:
**st: Robust version of the Hausman test... contradicting results** - Next by thread:
**st: RE: Robust version of the Hausman test... contradicting results** - Index(es):