WorksheetsHeteroskedasticity
Total questions: 21
Worksheet time: 2hrs 32mins
What are the possible consequences of heteroscedasticity for OLS estimator?
It becomes inconsistent
It becomes biased
It becomes inefficient
It becomes not linear
If you performed White's test and got the p-value of 0.02. At 5% significance level you would:
reject the null hypothesis of heteroscedasticity
reject the null hypothesis of homoscedasticity
do not reject the null hypothesis of heteroscedasticity
do not reject the null hypothesis of homoscedasticity
In the presence of heteroscedasticity if White's robust standard errors are used, usually
Coefficients change, the standard errors are the same.
Coefficients change, the standard errors become smaller.
Coefficients do not change, standard errors become greater.
Coefficients do not change, standard errors become smaller.
Heteroscedasticity is associated with:
Time series data
Cross-sectional data
Panel Data
Unbalanced Panel Data
A formula to compute White Test statistics is:
N*R
N*R2
N*2R
N*adjusted R2
White Test is used to detecting:
Heteroscedasticity
Autocorrelation
Correlation
Homoscedasticity
What is the tradeoff that a researcher faces when deciding how to deal with heteroskedasticity?
Goldfeld-Quandt overstates heteroskedasticity, but LM leads to more Type I errors.
White’s robust estimator should be used for hypothesis testing, but GLS is better for interval estimation.
GLS gives minimum variance, but results are more difficult to interpret.
White’s robust estimator requires no assumptions about the structure of the variance, but it is not as efficient as GLS estimates when the right structure is imposed on the variance.
A linear probability model is likely to violate which assumption of MR most of the time?
The values of each xik are not random and are not exact linear functions of the other explanatory variables.
var(yi)=var(ei)=σ2
cov(yi, yj)=cov(ei, ej)=0; i=j
E(yi)=β1+β2xi2+...+βkxik,⟺ E(ei)=0
If you run an LM test for heteroskedasiticity and reject the null hypothesis, what should you conclude?
There is heteroskedasticity present, and it is correctly specified as tested.
There is heteroskedasticity, but it is not linear in the explanatory variables.
There is no evidence of heteroskedasticity, the assumption var(yi)=var(ei)=σ2 is most likely true.
At least one coefficient in the auxiliary regression is significantly different from zero, the assumption var(yi)=var(ei)=σ2 is unlikely to be true
The LM (Lagrange Multiplier) test generates a test statistic N⋅R2∼χ2(s−1) Where is the R2 in the test statistic measured?
The original econometric model when estimated using the White correction technique
The average from all the auxiliary regressions estimated with each explanatory variable as a function of the other explanatory variables
The original econometric model before any test of heteroskedasticity has been performed
The auxiliary regression of residuals as a function of the explanatory variables generating the heteroskedasticity
What test for heteroskedasticity should be used if you suspect the error terms have different variances by category?
(a)
If heteroskedasticity is suspected, all of the following could be used to test for it EXCEPT the _____ test.
Lagrange Multiplier
Jarque-Bera
Breusch-Pagan
White
Which test for heteroskedasticity should you use if you suspect different variances of the error term for different groups of observations?
White test
Lagrange Multiplier test
Goldfeld-Quandt test
Chow test
Which model is LEAST likely to have violated the assumption var(yi)=var(ei)=σ2 ?
Which model is MOST likely to have violated the assumption var(yi)=var(ei)=σ2 ?
If you have heteroskedasticity such that the sample can be divided into groups with each group having a different error variance, what estimation technique should be used?
FGLS—Feasible Generalized Least Squares
WLS—Weighted Least Squares
White’s robust estimator
Log-linear least squares
How are coefficient estimates from WLS (weighted least squares) interpreted?
They must be scaled up by the weight used in order to calculate marginal effects.
There is no difference in interpretation since each observation is scaled by the same divisor.
Take the inverse of the natural logarithm of the coefficient to find marginal effects.
They should only be used for hypothesis testing. Coefficient estimates from the unweighted, original model should be used for prediction.
If you wish to estimate a multiple regression model with a large sample but you are not sure if heteroskedasticity is present, then you should run your estimate using _____.
robust standard errors
normal standard errors
normal OLS procedure
Jarque-Bera test
What are the consequences of using least squares when heteroskedasticity is present?
No consequences, coefficient estimates are still unbiased.
Confidence intervals and hypothesis testing are inaccurate due to inflated standard errors.
All coefficient estimates are biased for variables correlated with the error term.
It requires very large sample sizes to get efficient estimates.
If heteroskedasticity exists, which of the following statements is TRUE?
The probability density function of ei does not change for each i .
The variation of observed yi around different values of xi changes.
The OLS estimate of β1 will be unbiased.
var(ei)=σ2
Heteroskedasticity is a violation of which assumption of the MR model?
The values of each xik are not random and are not exact linear functions of the other explanatory variables.
var(yi)=var(ei)=σ2
cov(yi, yj)=cov(ei, ej)=0; i=j
E(yi)=β1+β2xi2+...+βkxik,⟺ E(ei)=0
