Bookmark and Share

Notice: On March 31, it was announced that Statalist is moving from an email list to a forum. The old list will shut down on April 23, and its replacement, statalist.org is already up and running.


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

Re: st: St: interpret the result of Hausman test


From   John Antonakis <John.Antonakis@unil.ch>
To   statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu
Subject   Re: st: St: interpret the result of Hausman test
Date   Fri, 20 Apr 2012 10:53:22 +0200

According to the endog test, your regressor is probably endogenous (given that you are close to the commonly-determined critical value of p < .05) and thus requires instrumenting. Are the estimates of iv and ols very different? If they are, and if your instruments are strong , which they seem to be judging form the Anderson test and the Stock-Yogo critical values, you may be better off trusting the inefficient iv estimate, than the efficient (but probably inconsistent) OLS estimate.

See: http://www.stata.com/statalist/archive/2012-03/msg01264.html

Best,
J.

__________________________________________

Prof. John Antonakis
Faculty of Business and Economics
Department of Organizational Behavior
University of Lausanne
Internef #618
CH-1015 Lausanne-Dorigny
Switzerland
Tel ++41 (0)21 692-3438
Fax ++41 (0)21 692-3305
http://www.hec.unil.ch/people/jantonakis

Associate Editor
The Leadership Quarterly
__________________________________________


On 20.04.2012 10:18, Hoang Dinh Quoc wrote:
Thanks. Below is what I got by ivreg2 y (x = z), endog(x). You talked about
the p-value 0.0600, right? Does this mean that we can conclude no
endogeneity problem?

Best,
Quoc



Underidentification test (Anderson canon. corr. LM statistic):
49.520
                                                    Chi-sq(1) P-val =  0.0000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Weak identification test (Cragg-Donald Wald F statistic):             53.345
Stock-Yogo weak ID test critical values: 10% maximal IV size           16.38
                                          15% maximal IV size            8.96
                                          20% maximal IV size            6.66
                                          25% maximal IV size            5.53
Source: Stock-Yogo (2005).  Reproduced by permission.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sargan statistic (overidentification test of all instruments):         0.000
                                                  (equation exactly
dentified)
-endog- option:
Endogeneity test of endogenous regressors:                             3.538
                                                    Chi-sq(1) P-val =  0.0600
Regressors tested:    sc_tie_weak
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Instrumented:         sc_tie_weak
Included instruments: sc_tie_strong sex income_cat_07 alter_SIOPs head_siops
                       market_close ethnic headage leader hhknown access_cre
                       Cre_Con mass_media Road_constraint red_gre
                       no_extension_contact _Idistrict_2 _Idistrict_3
                       _Idistrict_4 _Idistrict_5 _Idistrict_6 _Idistrict_7
Excluded instruments: loan_bank_job




-----Original Message-----
From: owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu
[mailto:owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu] On Behalf Of John Antonakis
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2012 3:03 PM
To: statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu
Subject: Re: st: St: interpret the result of Hausman test

No. I meant -endog- and not -orthog-.

Do you have the latest version of ivreg2?

. which ivreg2
c:\ado\plus\i\ivreg2.ado
*! ivreg2 3.1.04  19mar2012
*! authors cfb&  mes
*! see end of file for version comments

If not, updated your ivreg2 file:

ssc install ivreg2, replace

Then redo the iv-regression and see what you get.

Best,
J.

__________________________________________

Prof. John Antonakis
Faculty of Business and Economics
Department of Organizational Behavior
University of Lausanne
Internef #618
CH-1015 Lausanne-Dorigny
Switzerland
Tel ++41 (0)21 692-3438
Fax ++41 (0)21 692-3305
http://www.hec.unil.ch/people/jantonakis

Associate Editor
The Leadership Quarterly
__________________________________________


On 20.04.2012 09:50, Hoang Dinh Quoc wrote:
Dear Prof. Antonakis,

Thank you very much for your suggestion.



For your suggestion:

hausman one two, sigmamore
What does that give?

The result is below; I guess something went wrong with this result, right?



      b = consistent under Ho and Ha; obtained from regress

          B = inconsistent under Ha, efficient under Ho; obtained from
ivregress



      Test:  Ho:  difference in coefficients not systematic



                    chi2(1) = (b-B)'[(V_b-V_B)^(-1)](b-B)

                            =    -3.33    chi2<0 ==>   model fitted on these

                                          data fails to meet the asymptotic

                                          assumptions of the Hausman test;

                                          see suest for a generalized test


Your comment: "ivreg2 y (x = z), endog(x)". I guess you meant option
'orthog' right? Because endog did not work on my Stata; I am using Stata
10.

Below is the result; according to this result, as the P-value (0.0600) is
bigger than 0.5, I guess I can conclude x is not endogenous, right?


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Sargan statistic (Lagrange multiplier test of excluded instruments):
3.538
                                                     Chi-sq(1) P-val =
0.0600
-orthog- option:
Sargan statistic (eqn. excluding suspect orthogonality conditions):
0.000
                                                     Chi-sq(0) P-val =
.
C statistic (exogeneity/orthogonality of suspect instruments):
3.538
                                                     Chi-sq(1) P-val =
0.0600





Best,

Quoc







-----Original Message-----
From: owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu
[mailto:owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu] On Behalf Of John Antonakis
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 8:42 PM
To: statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu
Subject: Re: st: St: interpret the result of Hausman test



Do:



hausman one two, sigmamore



What does that give? If the hausman test is still NPD try:



ivreg2 y (x = z), endog(x)



Also, did you try it in sem as I suggested?



If the p value of the endogeneity test is<   .05 then x is endogenous.



However, if your sample is small the test might not have much power (so

I would be worried about endogeneity if<   .10). If you have good reason

to believe that x is endogenous then the iv estimator should be retained.



HTH,

J.



__________________________________________



Prof. John Antonakis

Faculty of Business and Economics

Department of Organizational Behavior

University of Lausanne

Internef #618

CH-1015 Lausanne-Dorigny

Switzerland

Tel ++41 (0)21 692-3438

Fax ++41 (0)21 692-3305

http://www.hec.unil.ch/people/jantonakis



Associate Editor

The Leadership Quarterly

__________________________________________





On 19.04.2012 10:39, Hoang Dinh Quoc wrote:

Dear Prof. Antonakis,
Thank you very much for your quick support.
I followed your suggestion:
"reg y x
est store one
ivregress 2sls y (x=z)
est store two
hausman one two"
And I got this result:
Test:  Ho:  difference in coefficients not systematic
                     chi2(1) = (b-B)'[(V_b-V_B)^(-1)](b-B)
                             =        3.31
                   Prob>chi2 =      0.0687
                   (V_b-V_B is not positive definite)
With is result, can I conclude that no endogeneity problem?
Thanks,
Best,
Hoang Dinh Quoc
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu
[mailto:owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu] On Behalf Of John Antonakis
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 3:23 PM
To: statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu
Subject: Re: st: St: interpret the result of Hausman test
Hi:
I am not quite sure what you have done here.
If you want to do this "by hand" do an augmented regression:
http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/stat/endogeneity.html
Else, use the -endog- option in the user-written program, ivreg2,
available from ssc (i.e., ssc install ivreg2, replace), e.g. (for
dependent variable y, endogenous regressor x, and instrument z):
ivreg2 y (x = z), endog(x).
Or do the usual hausman test via Stata, e.g.,
reg y x
est store one
ivregress 2sls y (x=z)
est store two
hausman one two
Finally, you can do this in the new Stata command, -sem- using maximum
likelihood:
sem (y<-x) (x<-z), cov(e.y*e.x)
The test of the correlation between the disturbances is the Hausman
test, as we explain in detail here:
Antonakis, J., Bendahan, S., Jacquart, P.,&    Lalive, R. (2010). On
making causal claims: A review and recommendations. The Leadership
Quarterly, 21(6). 1086-1120.
http://www.hec.unil.ch/jantonakis/Causal_Claims.pdf
For more basic explanations see:
Antonakis, J., Bendahan, S., Jacquart, P.,&    Lalive, R. (submitted).
Causality and endogeneity: Problems and solutions. In D.V. Day (Ed.),
The Oxford Handbook of Leadership and Organizations.
http://www.hec.unil.ch/jantonakis/Causality_and_endogeneity_final.pdf
HTH,
J.
__________________________________________
Prof. John Antonakis
Faculty of Business and Economics
Department of Organizational Behavior
University of Lausanne
Internef #618
CH-1015 Lausanne-Dorigny
Switzerland
Tel ++41 (0)21 692-3438
Fax ++41 (0)21 692-3305
http://www.hec.unil.ch/people/jantonakis
Associate Editor
The Leadership Quarterly
__________________________________________
On 19.04.2012 10:14, Hoang Dinh Quoc wrote:
    >    Dear Statalist members,
    >
    >    I would like to ask you a question regarding the result of a
Hausman
test.
    >
    >    My question is, with this result, if I conclude that I have no
problem of

    >    endogeneity; in other words, I have no endogenous variable?
    >
    >    I followed these steps:
    >    1. regress (OLS) to get a residual
    >    2. predict weak_rest1
    >    3. regress (OLS) using weak_rest1
    >    4. regress 2sls using IV
    >
    >    Here is the result of the t test of the residual:
    >    . test weak_res1
    >
    >     ( 1)  weak_res1 = 0
    >
    >           F(  1,   355) =    3.34
    >                Prob>    F =    0.0686
    >
    >    With is result, can I conclude that no endogeneity problem?
    >
    >    Thank you very much.
    >
    >    Best regards,
    >    Hoang Dinh Quoc
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >    *
    >    *   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/
*
*   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/

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu
[mailto:owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu] On Behalf Of John Antonakis
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 8:42 PM
To: statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu
Subject: Re: st: St: interpret the result of Hausman test

Do:

hausman one two, sigmamore

What does that give? If the hausman test is still NPD try:

ivreg2 y (x = z), endog(x)

Also, did you try it in sem as I suggested?

If the p value of the endogeneity test is<   .05 then x is endogenous.

However, if your sample is small the test might not have much power (so
I would be worried about endogeneity if<   .10). If you have good reason
to believe that x is endogenous then the iv estimator should be retained.

HTH,
J.

__________________________________________

Prof. John Antonakis
Faculty of Business and Economics
Department of Organizational Behavior
University of Lausanne
Internef #618
CH-1015 Lausanne-Dorigny
Switzerland
Tel ++41 (0)21 692-3438
Fax ++41 (0)21 692-3305
http://www.hec.unil.ch/people/jantonakis

Associate Editor
The Leadership Quarterly
__________________________________________


On 19.04.2012 10:39, Hoang Dinh Quoc wrote:
Dear Prof. Antonakis,

Thank you very much for your quick support.

I followed your suggestion:
"reg y x
est store one
ivregress 2sls y (x=z)
est store two
hausman one two"

And I got this result:

Test:  Ho:  difference in coefficients not systematic

                     chi2(1) = (b-B)'[(V_b-V_B)^(-1)](b-B)
                             =        3.31
                   Prob>chi2 =      0.0687
                   (V_b-V_B is not positive definite)

With is result, can I conclude that no endogeneity problem?

Thanks,
Best,
Hoang Dinh Quoc



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu
[mailto:owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu] On Behalf Of John Antonakis
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 3:23 PM
To: statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu
Subject: Re: st: St: interpret the result of Hausman test

Hi:

I am not quite sure what you have done here.

If you want to do this "by hand" do an augmented regression:

http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/stat/endogeneity.html

Else, use the -endog- option in the user-written program, ivreg2,
available from ssc (i.e., ssc install ivreg2, replace), e.g. (for
dependent variable y, endogenous regressor x, and instrument z):

ivreg2 y (x = z), endog(x).

Or do the usual hausman test via Stata, e.g.,

reg y x
est store one
ivregress 2sls y (x=z)
est store two
hausman one two

Finally, you can do this in the new Stata command, -sem- using maximum
likelihood:

sem (y<-x) (x<-z), cov(e.y*e.x)

The test of the correlation between the disturbances is the Hausman
test, as we explain in detail here:

Antonakis, J., Bendahan, S., Jacquart, P.,&    Lalive, R. (2010). On
making causal claims: A review and recommendations. The Leadership
Quarterly, 21(6). 1086-1120.
http://www.hec.unil.ch/jantonakis/Causal_Claims.pdf

For more basic explanations see:

Antonakis, J., Bendahan, S., Jacquart, P.,&    Lalive, R. (submitted).
Causality and endogeneity: Problems and solutions. In D.V. Day (Ed.),
The Oxford Handbook of Leadership and Organizations.
http://www.hec.unil.ch/jantonakis/Causality_and_endogeneity_final.pdf


HTH,
J.

__________________________________________

Prof. John Antonakis
Faculty of Business and Economics
Department of Organizational Behavior
University of Lausanne
Internef #618
CH-1015 Lausanne-Dorigny
Switzerland
Tel ++41 (0)21 692-3438
Fax ++41 (0)21 692-3305
http://www.hec.unil.ch/people/jantonakis

Associate Editor
The Leadership Quarterly
__________________________________________


On 19.04.2012 10:14, Hoang Dinh Quoc wrote:
    >    Dear Statalist members,
    >
    >    I would like to ask you a question regarding the result of a
Hausman
test.
    >
    >    My question is, with this result, if I conclude that I have no
problem of
    >    endogeneity; in other words, I have no endogenous variable?
    >
    >    I followed these steps:
    >    1. regress (OLS) to get a residual
    >    2. predict weak_rest1
    >    3. regress (OLS) using weak_rest1
    >    4. regress 2sls using IV
    >
    >    Here is the result of the t test of the residual:
    >    . test weak_res1
    >
    >     ( 1)  weak_res1 = 0
    >
    >           F(  1,   355) =    3.34
    >                Prob>    F =    0.0686
    >
    >    With is result, can I conclude that no endogeneity problem?
    >
    >    Thank you very much.
    >
    >    Best regards,
    >    Hoang Dinh Quoc
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >    *
    >    *   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/

*
*   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/

*
*   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/

*
*   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 1996–2014 StataCorp LP   |   Terms of use   |   Privacy   |   Contact us   |   Site index