1984
DOI: 10.2307/1911189
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Local Asymptotic Specification Error Analysis

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
17
0

Year Published

1985
1985
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
8
2

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 28 publications
(17 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
0
17
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The asymptotic bias of the non-linear FI estimator is calculated as in Kiefer and Skoog (1984) as the derivative of this bias with respect to cZ,. See the appendix for details.…”
Section: Asymptotic Bias and Power Of Testsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The asymptotic bias of the non-linear FI estimator is calculated as in Kiefer and Skoog (1984) as the derivative of this bias with respect to cZ,. See the appendix for details.…”
Section: Asymptotic Bias and Power Of Testsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The model has a high explanatory power with a high and highly significant 2 . Tests on ordered logit models provide evidence that omitted uncorrelated explanatory variables and neglected heteroscedasticity may generate inconsistent parameter estimates in this type of models (Kiefer & Skoog, 1984). To test for these misspecifications, an artificial regression based on LM (Lagrange Multiplier) test was used.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In particular this concerns the identification of the variance of the latent variable, which becomes a central problem when one wants to compare or pool different data sets. Moreover, failure to correct for true underlying heteroskedasticity implies inconsistent parameter estimates, contrary to conventional continuous regression models; see for example [12,17]. In this section we first replicate the baseline CEHM results (based on their data).…”
Section: Referenda and Between-sample Heteroskedasticity: The Cehm Datamentioning
confidence: 98%