Добавил:
Upload Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз: Предмет: Файл:
Скачиваний:
668
Добавлен:
03.06.2015
Размер:
8.25 Mб
Скачать

296—Chapter 26. Discrete and Limited Dependent Variable Models

Suppose that the estimated QML equation is named EQ1 and that the results are given by:

Dependent Variable: NUMB

Method: ML/QML - Poisson Count (Quadratic hill climbing)

Date: 08/12/09 Time: 10:34

Sample: 1 103

Included observations: 103

Convergence achieved after 4 iterations

GLM Robust Standard Errors & Covariance

Variance factor estimate = 2.22642046954

Covariance matrix computed using second derivatives

Variable

Coefficient

Std. Error

z-Statistic

Prob.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

C

1.725630

0.065140

26.49094

0.0000

IP

2.775334

1.222202

2.270766

0.0232

FEB

-0.377407

0.260405

-1.449307

0.1473

 

 

 

 

R-squared

0.064502

Mean dependent var

5.495146

Adjusted R-squared

0.045792

S.D. dependent var

3.653829

S.E. of regression

3.569190

Akaike info criterion

5.583421

Sum squared resid

1273.912

Schwarz criterion

5.660160

Log likelihood

-284.5462

Hannan-Quinn criter.

5.614503

Restr. log likelihood

-292.9694

LR statistic

 

16.84645

Avg. log likelihood

-2.762584

Prob(LR statistic)

0.000220

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note that when you select the GLM robust standard errors, EViews reports the estimated variance factor. Then you can use EViews to compute p-value associated with this statistic, placing the results in scalars using the following commands:

scalar qlr = eq1.@lrstat/2.226420477 scalar qpval = 1-@cchisq(qlr, 2)

You can examine the results by clicking on the scalar objects in the workfile window and viewing the results. The QLR statistic is 7.5666, and the p-value is 0.023. The statistic and p- value are valid under the weaker conditions that the conditional mean is correctly specified, and that the conditional variance is proportional (but not necessarily equal) to the conditional mean.

Technical Notes

Default Standard Errors

The default standard errors are obtained by taking the inverse of the estimated information matrix. If you estimate your equation using a Newton-Raphson or Quadratic Hill Climbing method, EViews will use the inverse of the Hessian, Hˆ –1 , to form your coefficient covariance estimate. If you employ BHHH, the coefficient covariance will be estimated using the inverse of the outer product of the scores (gˆ gˆ ¢)–1 , where gˆ and Hˆ are the gradient (or score) and Hessian of the log likelihood evaluated at the ML estimates.

Technical Notes—297

Huber/White (QML) Standard Errors

The Huber/White options for robust standard errors computes the quasi-maximum likelihood (or pseudo-ML) standard errors:

ˆ

=

ˆ –1

 

ˆ

–1

,

(26.50)

varQML(b)

H

gg¢H

 

 

 

 

ˆ ˆ

 

 

 

 

Note that these standard errors are not robust to heteroskedasticity in binary dependent variable models. They are robust to certain misspecifications of the underlying distribution of y .

GLM Standard Errors

Many of the discrete and limited dependent variable models described in this chapter belong to a class of models known as generalized linear models (GLM). The assumption of GLM is that the distribution of the dependent variable yi belongs to the exponential family and that the conditional mean of yi is a (smooth) nonlinear transformation of the linear part xi¢b :

E(yi

 

xi, b) = h(xi¢b).

(26.51)

 

Even though the QML covariance is robust to general misspecification of the conditional distribution of yi , it does not possess any efficiency properties. An alternative consistent estimate of the covariance is obtained if we impose the GLM condition that the (true) variance of yi is proportional to the variance of the distribution used to specify the log likelihood:

var(yi

 

xi, b) = j2varML(yi

 

xi, b).

(26.52)

 

 

In other words, the ratio of the (conditional) variance to the mean is some constant j2 that is independent of x . The most empirically relevant case is j2 > 1 , which is known as overdispersion. If this proportional variance condition holds, a consistent estimate of the GLM covariance is given by:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ˆ

=

ˆ

2

 

ˆ

 

 

(26.53)

 

 

 

 

 

 

varGLM(b)

j

varML(b),

 

where

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ˆ

2

 

1

 

 

N

ˆ

2

 

 

1

 

N

ˆ 2

 

=

 

 

Â

(yi yi)

 

=

 

 

Â

ui

(26.54)

j

 

---------------

-----------------------------

 

--------------

---------------------------------- .

 

 

 

N

K

 

ˆ

 

 

 

N K

 

ˆ ˆ

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i = 1

v(xi, b, gˆ )

 

 

 

 

i = 1

(v(xi, b, g))

 

If you select GLM standard errors, the estimated proportionality term jˆ 2 is reported as the variance factor estimate in EViews.

For more discussion on GLM and the phenomenon of overdispersion, see McCullaugh and Nelder (1989).

298—Chapter 26. Discrete and Limited Dependent Variable Models

The Hosmer-Lemeshow Test

Let the data be grouped into j = 1, 2, º, J groups, and let nj be the number of observations in group j . Define the number of yi = 1 observations and the average of predicted values in group j as:

y(j) = Â yi

i Œ j

(26.55)

 

 

ˆ

 

 

 

 

 

ˆ

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

§ nj

= Â (1 – F(xi¢b)) § nj

 

p(j) = Â pi

 

 

 

i Œ j

 

 

i Œ j

 

The Hosmer-Lemeshow test statistic is computed as:

 

 

 

HL =

J

(y(j) nj

p

(j))2

(26.56)

 

 

Â

---------------------------------------- .

 

 

 

j = 1

nj

p

(j)(1 – p(j))

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The distribution of the HL statistic is not known; however, Hosmer and Lemeshow (1989, p.141) report evidence from extensive simulation indicating that when the model is correctly specified, the distribution of the statistic is well approximated by a x2 distribution with J – 2 degrees of freedom. Note that these findings are based on a simulation where J is close to n .

The Andrews Test

Let the data be grouped into j = 1, 2, º, J groups. Since y is binary, there are 2J cells into which any observation can fall. Andrews (1988a, 1988b) compares the 2J vector of the actual number of observations in each cell to those predicted from the model, forms a quadratic form, and shows that the quadratic form has an asymptotic x2 distribution if the model is specified correctly.

Andrews suggests three tests depending on the choice of the weighting matrix in the quadratic form. EViews uses the test that can be computed by an auxiliary regression as described in Andrews (1988a, 3.18) or Andrews (1988b, 17).

Briefly, let A˜ be an n ¥ J matrix with element a˜ ij = 1(i Œ j) pˆ i , where the indicator function 1(i Œ j) takes the value one if observation i belongs to group j with yi = 1 , and zero otherwise (we drop the columns for the groups with y = 0 to avoid singularity). Let B be the n ¥ K matrix of the contributions to the score l(b) § ∂b¢. The Andrews test

statistic is n times the R

2

˜

B .

 

from regressing a constant (one) on each column of A and

Under the null hypothesis that the model is correctly specified, nR2 is asymptotically distributed x2 with J degrees of freedom.

References

Aitchison, J. and S.D. Silvey (1957). “The Generalization of Probit Analysis to the Case of Multiple Responses,” Biometrika, 44, 131–140.

References—299

Agresti, Alan (1996). An Introduction to Categorical Data Analysis, New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Andrews, Donald W. K. (1988a). “Chi-Square Diagnostic Tests for Econometric Models: Theory,” Econometrica, 56, 1419–1453.

Andrews, Donald W. K. (1988b). “Chi-Square Diagnostic Tests for Econometric Models: Introduction and Applications,” Journal of Econometrics, 37, 135–156.

Cameron, A. Colin and Pravin K. Trivedi (1990). “Regression-based Tests for Overdispersion in the Poisson Model,” Journal of Econometrics, 46, 347–364.

Chesher, A. and M. Irish (1987). “Residual Analysis in the Grouped Data and Censored Normal Linear Model,” Journal of Econometrics, 34, 33–62.

Chesher, A., T. Lancaster, and M. Irish (1985). “On Detecting the Failure of Distributional Assumptions,”

Annales de L’Insee, 59/60, 7–44.

Davidson, Russell and James G. MacKinnon (1993). Estimation and Inference in Econometrics, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Gourieroux, C., A. Monfort, E. Renault, and A. Trognon (1987). “Generalized Residuals,” Journal of Econometrics, 34, 5–32.

Gourieroux, C., A. Monfort, and C. Trognon (1984a). “Pseudo-Maximum Likelihood Methods: Theory,”

Econometrica, 52, 681–700.

Gourieroux, C., A. Monfort, and C. Trognon (1984b). “Pseudo-Maximum Likelihood Methods: Applications to Poisson Models,” Econometrica, 52, 701–720.

Greene, William H. (2008). Econometric Analysis, 6th Edition, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Harvey, Andrew C. (1987). “Applications of the Kalman Filter in Econometrics,” Chapter 8 in Truman F. Bewley (ed.), Advances in Econometrics—Fifth World Congress, Volume 1, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Harvey, Andrew C. (1989). Forecasting, Structural Time Series Models and the Kalman Filter, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hosmer, David W. Jr. and Stanley Lemeshow (1989). Applied Logistic Regression, New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Johnston, Jack and John Enrico DiNardo (1997). Econometric Methods, 4th Edition, New York: McGrawHill.

Kennan, John (1985). “The Duration of Contract Strikes in U.S. Manufacturing,” Journal of Econometrics, 28, 5–28.

Maddala, G. S. (1983). Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

McCullagh, Peter, and J. A. Nelder (1989). Generalized Linear Models, Second Edition. London: Chapman & Hall.

McDonald, J. and R. Moffitt (1980). “The Uses of Tobit Analysis,” Review of Economic and Statistics, 62, 318–321.

Pagan, A. and F. Vella (1989). “Diagnostic Tests for Models Based on Individual Data: A Survey,” Journal of Applied Econometrics, 4, S29–S59.

Pindyck, Robert S. and Daniel L. Rubinfeld (1998). Econometric Models and Economic Forecasts, 4th edition, New York: McGraw-Hill.

Powell, J. L. (1986). “Symmetrically Trimmed Least Squares Estimation for Tobit Models,” Econometrica, 54, 1435–1460.

300—Chapter 26. Discrete and Limited Dependent Variable Models

Wooldridge, Jeffrey M. (1997). “Quasi-Likelihood Methods for Count Data,” Chapter 8 in M. Hashem Pesaran and P. Schmidt (eds.) Handbook of Applied Econometrics, Volume 2, Malden, MA: Blackwell, 352–406.

Соседние файлы в папке EViews Guides BITCH