IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

Bootstrap correcting the score test

Listed author(s):
  • Dirk Hoorelbeke
Registered author(s):

    The Lagrange multiplier test, or score test, suggested independently by Aitchison and Silvey (1958) and Rao (1948), tests for parametric restrictions. Although the score test is an intuitively appealing and often used procedure, the exact distribution of the score test statistic is generally unknown and is often approximated by its first-order asymptotic $\chi^2$ distribution. In problems of econometric inference, however, first-order asymptotic theory may be a poor guide, and this is also true for the score test, as demonstrated in different Monte Carlo studies. See e.g. Breusch and Pagan (1979), Bera and Jarque (1981), Davidson and MacKinnon (1983, 1984, 1992), Chesher and Spady (1991) and Horowitz (1994), among many others. One can use the bootstrap distribution of the score test statistic to obtain a critical value. This can give already satisfactory results in terms of ERP (error in rejection probability: the difference between nominal and actual rejection probability under the null hypothesis). However, the score test uses a quadratic form statistic. In the construction and implementation of such a quadratic form statistic two important aspects, which determine the performance of the test (both under the null and the alternative), are (i) the weighting matrix (the covariance matrix of the score vector) and (ii) the critical value. Since the score test statistic is asymptotically pivotal, the bootstrap critical value is second-order correct. However, one can achieve better performance, as well in terms of ERP as of power, by using a better estimate of the weighting matrix used in the quadratic form. In this paper we propose a bootstrap-based method to obtain both a second-order correct estimate of the covariance matrix of the score vector and a second-order correct critical value, using only one round of simulations (instead of B1 + B1 x B2). The method works as follows. Assume there exists a matrix A such that the score vector premultiplied by A is asymptotically pivotal. An obvious choice for A is the inverse of a square root of a covariance matrix estimate of the score vector, yielding a multivariate studentized score vector. This is not the only possible choice for A, though. Since then the transformed score vector is asymptotically pivotal, the bootstrap distribution is a second-order approximation to the exact finite sample distribution. As such, the bootstrap covariance matrix of the transformed score vector is also second-order correct. The next step is to construct a quadratic form statistic in the transformed score vector using its bootstrap covariance matrix as weighting matrix. This statistic is asymptotically (as both the sample size and the number of bootstrap simulations go to infinity) chi-squared distributed with q (the dimension of the score) degrees of freedom. In practice, however, the number of bootstrap simulations is fixed to, say, B simulations. In this case the statistic is asymptotically (for the sample size tending to infinity) Hotelling T-squared distributed with q and B-1 degrees of freedom. Using a finite B, the exact finite sample covariance matrix of the transformed score vector is estimated with some noise, but the T-squared critical values correct for this. When the T-squared critical values are used, one is still only first-order correct. But the distribution of the new statistic can also be approximated by the empirical distribution function of the quadratic forms in the bootstrap replications of the transformed score vector using the inverse of the bootstrap covariance matrix as weighting matrix. The appropriate quantile of this empirical distribution delivers a critical value which is second-order correct. In a Monte Carlo simulation study we look at the information matrix test (White, 1982) in the regression model. Chesher (1983) showed that the information matrix is a score test for parameter constancy. We correct the Chesher-Lancaster version (Chesher, 1983 and Lancaster, 1984) of the information matrix test with the method proposed above and look at the ERP under the null and the power under a heteroskedastic alternative. The corrected statistic outperforms the Chesher-Lancaster statistic both in terms of ERP (with asymptotic or bootstrap critical values) and power.

    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:
    Download Restriction: no

    Paper provided by Econometric Society in its series Econometric Society 2004 North American Summer Meetings with number 228.

    in new window

    Date of creation: 11 Aug 2004
    Handle: RePEc:ecm:nasm04:228
    Contact details of provider: Phone: 1 212 998 3820
    Fax: 1 212 995 4487
    Web page:

    More information through EDIRC

    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.:

    in new window

    1. Orme, Chris, 1990. "The small-sample performance of the information-matrix test," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 46(3), pages 309-331, December.
    2. Lancaster, Tony, 1984. "The Covariance Matrix of the Information Matrix Test," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(4), pages 1051-1053, July.
    3. 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.
    4. Dhaene, Geert & Hoorelbeke, Dirk, 2004. "The information matrix test with bootstrap-based covariance matrix estimation," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 82(3), pages 341-347, March.
    5. Horowitz, Joel L., 1994. "Bootstrap-based critical values for the information matrix test," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 395-411, April.
    6. Teresa Aparicio & Inmaculada Villanua, 2001. "The asymptotically efficient version of the information matrix test in binary choice models. A study of size and power," Journal of Applied Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(2), pages 167-182.
    7. 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.
    8. Breusch, T S & Pagan, A R, 1979. "A Simple Test for Heteroscedasticity and Random Coefficient Variation," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(5), pages 1287-1294, September.
    9. Chesher, Andrew, 1983. "The information matrix test : Simplified calculation via a score test interpretation," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 45-48.
    10. 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.
    11. Davidson, Russel & MacKinnon, James G., 1983. "Small sample properties of alternative forms of the Lagrange Multiplier test," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 12(3-4), pages 269-275.
    12. Davidson, Russell & MacKinnon, James G, 1992. "A New Form of the Information Matrix Test," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 60(1), pages 145-157, January.
    13. Chesher, Andrew D, 1984. "Testing for Neglected Heterogeneity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(4), pages 865-872, July.
    14. Alastair Hall, 1987. "The Information Matrix Test for the Linear Model," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 54(2), pages 257-263.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

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

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ecm:nasm04:228. 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: (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.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.