Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Monte carlo sampling approach to testing nonnested hypothesis: monte carlo results

Contents:

Author Info

  • N. Coulibaly
  • B. Wade Brorsen

Abstract

Alternative ways of using Monte Carlo methods to implement a Cox-type test for separate families of hypotheses are considered. Monte Carlo experiments are designed to compare the finite sample performances of Pesaran and Pesaran's test, a RESET test, and two Monte Carlo hypothesis test procedures. One of the Monte Carlo tests is based on the distribution of the log-likelihood ratio and the other is based on an asymptotically pivotal statistic. The Monte Carlo results provide strong evidence that the size of the Pesaran and Pesaran test is generally incorrect, except for very large sample sizes. The RESET test has lower power than the other tests. The two Monte Carlo tests perform equally well for all sample sizes and are both clearly preferred to the Pesaran and Pesaran test, even in large samples. Since the Monte Carlo test based on the log-likelihood ratio is the simplest to calculate, we recommend using it.

Download Info

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
File URL: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07474939908800439
Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Bibliographic Info

Article provided by Taylor & Francis Journals in its journal Econometric Reviews.

Volume (Year): 18 (1999)
Issue (Month): 2 ()
Pages: 195-209

as in new window
Handle: RePEc:taf:emetrv:v:18:y:1999:i:2:p:195-209

Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.tandfonline.com/LECR20

Order Information:
Web: http://www.tandfonline.com/pricing/journal/LECR20

Related research

Keywords: Cox test; Monte Carlo test; Nonnested hypotheses; JEL Classification:C12; C15;

Find related papers by JEL classification:

References

No references listed on IDEAS
You can help add them by filling out this form.

Citations

Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
as in new window

Cited by:
  1. Kaitibie, Simeon & Nganje, William E. & Brorsen, B. Wade & Epplin, Francis M., 2003. "Optimal Grazing Pressure Under Output Price And Production Uncertainty With Alternative Functional Forms," 2003 Annual meeting, July 27-30, Montreal, Canada 22020, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
  2. Berg, Nathan, 2004. "No-decision classification: an alternative to testing for statistical significance," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 33(5), pages 631-650, November.
  3. Kapetanios, G. & Weeks, M., 2003. "Non-nested Models and the likelihood Ratio Statistic: A Comparison of Simulation and Bootstrap-based Tests," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 0308, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
  4. Dameus, Alix & Richter, Francisca G.-C. & Brorsen, B. Wade & Sukhdial, Kullapapruk Piewthongngam, 2002. "Aids Versus The Rotterdam Demand System: A Cox Test With Parametric Bootstrap," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 27(02), December.
  5. Dameus, Alix & Brorsen, B. Wade & Sukhdial, Kullapapruk Piewthongngam & Richter, Francisca G.-C., 2001. "Aids Versus Rotterdam: A Cox Nonnested Test With Parametric Bootstrap," 2001 Annual meeting, August 5-8, Chicago, IL 20453, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
  6. Park, Seong Cheol & Brorsen, B. Wade & Stoecker, Arthur L. & Hattey, Jeffory A., 2012. "Forage Response to Swine Effluent: A Cox Nonnested Test of Alternative Functional Forms Using a Fast Double Bootstrap," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 44(04), November.

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:emetrv:v:18:y:1999:i:2:p:195-209. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ().

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.