Heteroscedasticity of unknown form: a comparison of five heteroscedasticity-consistent covariance matrix (hccm) estimators

Nwangburuka C, Ijomah M A, N. M T
{"title":"Heteroscedasticity of unknown form: a comparison of five heteroscedasticity-consistent covariance matrix (hccm) estimators","authors":"Nwangburuka C, Ijomah M A, N. M T","doi":"10.4314/gjpas.v29i1.10","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Regression model applications frequently involve violations of the homoscedasticity assumption and the presence of high leverage points (HLPs). The Heteroscedasticity-Consistent Covariance Matrix (HCCM) estimator's impact in the presence of heteroscedasticity of an unknown form was investigated in this study. The effectiveness of five variations of HCCM namely White’s estimator (HC0), White-Hinkley (HC1), Mackinnon White (HC2), Davison –Mackinnon (HC3), and Cribari-Neto (HC4) were accessed to identify the optimal Heteroscedasticity-Consistent Covariance Matrix (HCCM) estimator. In the study a simulated dataset was analysed using the Econometric View Software Version 12. The Breush-Pagan Godfery’s test for heteroscedasticity was applied and p-value of 0.0123 was obtained indicating presence of heteroscedasticity in the model. Applying the HCCM estimators and comparing the Heteroskedasticity-consistent standard errors estimates showed that HCO had 124.104, HC1 had 1189.222, HC2 had 1175.282, HC3 had 1106.94 and HC4 had 1140.707. These results reveal that HC3 and HC4 produced smaller errors compared to HC0, HC1 and HC2. The study hence comes to the conclusion that when doing inferential tests using OLS regression, the use of HCSE estimator increases the researcher's confidence in the accuracy and potency of those tests. This study therefore suggests that to ensure that findings are not affected by heteroscedasticity; researchers should use HCCM estimator but precisely HC3 and HC4, as the presented better results in comparison to others. \n ","PeriodicalId":12516,"journal":{"name":"Global Journal of Pure and Applied Sciences","volume":"3 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Journal of Pure and Applied Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4314/gjpas.v29i1.10","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Regression model applications frequently involve violations of the homoscedasticity assumption and the presence of high leverage points (HLPs). The Heteroscedasticity-Consistent Covariance Matrix (HCCM) estimator's impact in the presence of heteroscedasticity of an unknown form was investigated in this study. The effectiveness of five variations of HCCM namely White’s estimator (HC0), White-Hinkley (HC1), Mackinnon White (HC2), Davison –Mackinnon (HC3), and Cribari-Neto (HC4) were accessed to identify the optimal Heteroscedasticity-Consistent Covariance Matrix (HCCM) estimator. In the study a simulated dataset was analysed using the Econometric View Software Version 12. The Breush-Pagan Godfery’s test for heteroscedasticity was applied and p-value of 0.0123 was obtained indicating presence of heteroscedasticity in the model. Applying the HCCM estimators and comparing the Heteroskedasticity-consistent standard errors estimates showed that HCO had 124.104, HC1 had 1189.222, HC2 had 1175.282, HC3 had 1106.94 and HC4 had 1140.707. These results reveal that HC3 and HC4 produced smaller errors compared to HC0, HC1 and HC2. The study hence comes to the conclusion that when doing inferential tests using OLS regression, the use of HCSE estimator increases the researcher's confidence in the accuracy and potency of those tests. This study therefore suggests that to ensure that findings are not affected by heteroscedasticity; researchers should use HCCM estimator but precisely HC3 and HC4, as the presented better results in comparison to others.  
未知形式的异方差:五种异方差一致协方差矩阵(hccm)估计量的比较
回归模型应用经常涉及违反均方差假设和高杠杆点(hlp)的存在。本研究探讨了异方差-一致协方差矩阵(HCCM)估计量在存在未知形式异方差时的影响。利用White’s estimator (HC0)、White- hinkley (HC1)、Mackinnon White (HC2)、Davison -Mackinnon (HC3)和Cribari-Neto (HC4)这5种HCCM变量的有效性来确定最优异方差-一致协方差矩阵(HCCM)估计量。在研究中,模拟数据集使用计量经济学视图软件版本12进行分析。采用brush - pagan Godfery检验,p值为0.0123,表明模型存在异方差。应用HCCM估计量,比较异方差一致的标准误差估计,HCO为124.104,HC1为1189.222,HC2为1175.282,HC3为1106.94,HC4为1140.707。这些结果表明,与HC0、HC1和HC2相比,HC3和HC4产生的误差较小。因此,研究得出的结论是,当使用OLS回归进行推理测试时,使用HCSE估计器增加了研究人员对这些测试的准确性和效力的信心。因此,本研究建议,为了确保研究结果不受异方差的影响;研究人员应该使用HCCM估计器,但准确地说是HC3和HC4,因为与其他估计器相比,它们的结果更好。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信