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, is already up and running.

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

Re: st: confusion

From   Stuart Buck <>
Subject   Re: st: confusion
Date   Sun, 5 May 2013 19:24:33 -0500

The Hausman test does not tell you to use fixed vs. random effects.
Instead, if a Hausman test shows significant differences between the
models, it's simply telling you that there are between effects that
need to be accounted for via a mean group variable. See Bafumi/Gelman,,
and especially Bell/Jones, . If
you include the relevant group means, the fixed effects and random
effects estimates for all the other variables will be identical.

On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 10:25 AM, montaha <> wrote:
> hello everybody,
> i need your help guys
> i had to test for fixed and random effects using STATA.
> I got the following tables which shows that
> In "fixed effects" output the signs of the coefficient are totally different
> from anticipated signs in theory, additionally some of them are
> insignificant.
> But in Random effect output the signs are true and they are significant.
> when i did Hausman test.. the prob>chi2 was 0.000 which indicates that i
> shall use Fixed effect
> but as i have mentioned the signs are not as expected and they are not
> significant...
> the output
> <>
> <>
> <>
> thank u i advance
> --
> View this message in context:
> Sent from the Statalist mailing list archive at
> *
> *   For searches and help try:
> *
> *
> *

Stuart Buck
479-200-2750 (cell)
*   For searches and help try:

© Copyright 1996–2016 StataCorp LP   |   Terms of use   |   Privacy   |   Contact us   |   Site index