2020
DOI: 10.1177/1536867x20931002
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Testing for the presence of measurement error in Stata

Abstract: In this article, we describe how to test for the presence of measurement error in explanatory variables. First, we discuss the test of such hypotheses in parametric models such as linear regressions and then introduce a new command, dgmtest, for a nonparametric test proposed in Wilhelm (2018, Working Paper CWP45/18, Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice, Institute for Fiscal Studies). To illustrate the new command, we provide Monte Carlo simulations and an empirical application to testing for measurement e… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
2

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 53 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Regardless of the causes of the existence and persistence of misperceptions, failure to account for misperceptions could lead to biased and inconsistent price premium estimates. To this end, we examine whether the remaining quality misperception is severe enough to distort the price premia estimates reported earlier in Table 2 using non-parametric hypothesis testing approaches ( Lee and Wilhelm, 2020 ; Wossen et al, 2022 ). Non-parametric test results, based on the Cramer-von Mises test statistics ( CvM ) and Kolmogorov-Smirnov test statistics ( KS ), consistently reject the null of no misperception post-reveal at all reasonable significance levels (see Appendix Table A6 ).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Regardless of the causes of the existence and persistence of misperceptions, failure to account for misperceptions could lead to biased and inconsistent price premium estimates. To this end, we examine whether the remaining quality misperception is severe enough to distort the price premia estimates reported earlier in Table 2 using non-parametric hypothesis testing approaches ( Lee and Wilhelm, 2020 ; Wossen et al, 2022 ). Non-parametric test results, based on the Cramer-von Mises test statistics ( CvM ) and Kolmogorov-Smirnov test statistics ( KS ), consistently reject the null of no misperception post-reveal at all reasonable significance levels (see Appendix Table A6 ).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We find that the coefficient of Z is statistically significant at the 5% level (t-statistic of 2.21). Therefore, with the assumption of linearity, we reject the null of no ME in self-reported education (Hausman (1978) and Lee and Wilhelm (2020)). This finding is consistent with the possibility that the nonparametric test has low power because of the small sample size and thus fails to reject, but the test imposing linearity of the conditional expectation is more powerful and thus does reject.…”
Section: Us Twins Datamentioning
confidence: 88%
“…Therefore, with the assumption of linearity, we still suspect the presence of measurement errors while the tests do not strongly reject the null of no ME. (Hausman (1978) and Lee and Wilhelm (2020)). This finding is consistent with the possibility that the nonparametric test has low power because of the small sample size and thus fails to reject, but the test imposing linearity of the conditional expectation is more powerful.…”
Section: Empirical Illustration: Returns To Schoolingmentioning
confidence: 98%