The power of bootstrap and asymptotic tests
We introduce the concept of the bootstrap discrepancy, which measures the difference in rejection probabilities between a bootstrap test based on a given test statistic and that of a (usually infeasible) test based on the true distribution of the statistic. We show that the bootstrap discrepancy is of the same order of magnitude under the null hypothesis and under non-null processes described by a Pitman drift. However, complications arise in the measurement of power. If the test statistic is not an exact pivot, critical values depend on which data-generating process (DGP) is used to determine the distribution under the null hypothesis. We propose as the proper choice the DGP which minimizes the bootstrap discrepancy. We also show that, under an asymptotic independence condition, the power of both bootstrap and asymptotic tests can be estimated cheaply by simulation. The theory of the paper and the proposed simulation method are illustrated by Monte Carlo experiments using the logit model.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
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.
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Russell Davidson & James G. MacKinnon, 1984.
"Implicit Alternatives and the Local Power of Test Statistics,"
556, Queen's University, Department of Economics.
- Davidson, Russell & MacKinnon, James G, 1987. "Implicit Alternatives and the Local Power of Test Statistics," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 55(6), pages 1305-29, November.
- Davidson , R. & Mackinnon, J.G., 1985. "Implicit alternatives and the local power of test statistics," CORE Discussion Papers 1985025, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
- Horowitz, Joel L., 1994. "Bootstrap-based critical values for the information matrix test," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 395-411, April.
- Horowitz, Joel L. & Savin, N. E., 2000. "Empirically relevant critical values for hypothesis tests: A bootstrap approach," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 95(2), pages 375-389, April.
- Russell Davidson & James G. MacKinnon, 1994.
"Graphical Methods for Investigating the Size and Power of Hypothesis Tests,"
903, Queen's University, Department of Economics.
- Davidson, Russell & MacKinnon, James G, 1998. "Graphical Methods for Investigating the Size and Power of Hypothesis Tests," The Manchester School of Economic & Social Studies, University of Manchester, vol. 66(1), pages 1-26, January.
- Russell Davidson & James G. MacKinnon, 2001.
"Bootstrap Tests: How Many Bootstraps?,"
1036, Queen's University, Department of Economics.
- White, Halbert, 1982. "Maximum Likelihood Estimation of Misspecified Models," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(1), pages 1-25, January.
- Davidson, Russell & MacKinnon, James G., 1999.
"The Size Distortion Of Bootstrap Tests,"
Cambridge University Press, vol. 15(03), pages 361-376, June.
- Rudolf Beran, 1997. "Diagnosing Bootstrap Success," Annals of the Institute of Statistical Mathematics, Springer, vol. 49(1), pages 1-24, March.
- Davidson, Russell & MacKinnon, James G., 1993. "Estimation and Inference in Econometrics," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195060119.
- Russell Davidson & James G. MacKinnon, 1982.
"Convenient Specification Tests for Logit and Probit Models,"
514, Queen's University, Department of Economics.
- Davidson, Russell & MacKinnon, James G., 1984. "Convenient specification tests for logit and probit models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 241-262, July.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:econom:v:133:y:2006:i:2:p:421-441. 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: (Zhang, Lei)
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.