A comparative study of alternative estimators for the unbalanced two-way error component regression model
This paper considers the unbalanced two-way error component model studied by Wansbeek and Kapteyn (1989). Alternative analysis of variance (ANOVA), minimum norm quadratic unbiased and restricted maximum likelihood (REML) estimation procedures are proposed. The mean squared error performance of these estimators are compared using Monte Carlo experiments. Results show that for the estimates of the variance components, the computationally more demanding maximum likelihood (ML) and minimum variance quadratic unbiased (MIVQUE) estimators are recommended, especially if the unbalanced pattern is severe. However, focusing on the regression coefficient estimates, the simple ANOVA methods perform just as well as the computationally demanding ML and MIVQUE methods and are recommended. Copyright Royal Economic Society, 2002
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.
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.
Volume (Year): 5 (2002)
Issue (Month): 2 (06)
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: Office of the Secretary-General, Rm E35, The Bute Building, Westburn Lane, St Andrews, KY16 9TS, UK|
Phone: +44 1334 462479
Web page: http://www.res.org.uk/
More information through EDIRC
|Order Information:||Web: http://www.ectj.org|
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ect:emjrnl:v:5:y:2002:i:2:p:480-493. 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: (Wiley-Blackwell Digital Licensing)or (Christopher F. Baum)
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.