IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

More on F versus t tests for unit roots when there is no trend


  • Peter E. Kennedy

    () (Simon Fraser University)

  • John Elder

    () (North Dakota State University)


Rodrigues and Tremayne (2004) interpret a problematic size result in a Monte Carlo study reported in Elder and Kennedy (2001) as arising from Elder and Kennedy's use of an inappropriate testing equation. In expositing their result, Rodrigues and Tremayne inadvertently lead readers to believe that the Elder and Kennedy conclusion is in error. We clarify the Rodrigues and Tremayne contribution, putting the validity of the Elder and Kennedy result in proper perspective and underlining the important role played by the starting value in Monte Carlo analyses.

Suggested Citation

  • Peter E. Kennedy & John Elder, 2004. "More on F versus t tests for unit roots when there is no trend," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 3(37), pages 1-6.
  • Handle: RePEc:ebl:ecbull:eb-04c10023

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. repec:ebl:ecbull:v:3:y:2004:i:12:p:1-7 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. repec:ebl:ecbull:v:3:y:2004:i:11:p:1-9 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Dickey, David A & Fuller, Wayne A, 1981. "Likelihood Ratio Statistics for Autoregressive Time Series with a Unit Root," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 49(4), pages 1057-1072, June.
    4. Peter E. Kennedy & John Elder, 2001. "F versus t tests for unit roots," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 3(3), pages 1-6.
    5. Ulrich K. M¸ller & Graham Elliott, 2003. "Tests for Unit Roots and the Initial Condition," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 71(4), pages 1269-1286, July.
    6. Paulo M. M. Rodrigues & Andrew Tremayne, 2004. "F versus t tests for unit roots: a comment," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 3(12), pages 1-7.
    7. Steven Cook, 2004. "On the finite-sample power of modified Dickey-Fuller tests: The role of the initial condition," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 3(11), pages 1-9.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C1 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General


    Access and download statistics


    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ebl:ecbull:eb-04c10023. 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: (John P. Conley). General contact details of provider: .

    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 CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service 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.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.