10.2 Non-Nested Model
compare models with different non-nested specifications
10.2.1 Davidson-Mackinnon test
10.2.1.1 Independent Variable
Should the independent variables be logged? (decide between non-nested alternatives)
\[ \begin{aligned} y = \beta_0 + x_1\beta_1 + x_2\beta_2 + \epsilon && \text{(level eq)} \\ y = \beta_0 + ln(x_1)\beta_1 + x_2\beta_2 + \epsilon && \text{(log eq)} \end{aligned} \]
- Obtain predict outcome when estimating the model in log equation \(\check{y}\) and then estimate the following auxiliary equation,
\[ y = \beta_0 + x_1\beta_1 + x_2\beta_2 + \check{y}\gamma + error \]
and evaluate the t-statistic for the null hypothesis \(H_0: \gamma = 0\)
- Obtain predict outcome when estimating the model in the level equation \(\hat{y}\), then estimate the following auxiliary equation,
\[ y = \beta_0 + ln(x_1)\beta_1 + x_2\beta_2 + \check{y}\gamma + error \]
and evaluate the t-statistic for the null hypothesis \(H_0: \gamma = 0\)
- If you reject the null in the (1) step but fail to reject the null in the second step, then the log equation is preferred.
- If fail to reject the null in the (1) step but reject the null in the (2) step then, level equation is preferred.
- If reject in both steps, then you have statistical evidence that neither model should be used and should re-evaluate the functional form of your model.
- If fail to reject in both steps, you do not have sufficient evidence to prefer one model over the other. You can compare the \(R^2_{adj}\) to choose between the two models.
\[ \begin{aligned} y &= \beta_0 + ln(x)\beta_1 + \epsilon \\ y &= \beta_0 + x(\beta_1) + x^2\beta_2 + \epsilon \end{aligned} \]
- Compare which better fits the data
- Compare standard \(R^2\) is unfair because the second model is less parsimonious (more parameters to estimate)
- The \(R_{adj}^2\) will penalize the second model for being less parsimonious + Only valid when there is no heteroskedasticity (A4 holds)
- Should only compare after a Davidson-Mackinnon test
10.2.1.2 Dependent Variable
\[ \begin{aligned} y &= \beta_0 + x_1\beta_1 + \epsilon & \text{level eq} \\ ln(y) &= \beta_0 + x_1\beta_1 + \epsilon & \text{log eq} \\ \end{aligned} \]
- In the level model, regardless of how big y is, x has a constant effect (i.e., one unit change in \(x_1\) results in a \(\beta_1\) unit change in y)
- In the log model, the larger in y is, the effect of x is stronger (i.e., one unit change in \(x_1\) could increase y from 1 to \(1+\beta_1\) or from 100 to 100+100x\(\beta_1\))
- Cannot compare \(R^2\) or \(R^2_{adj}\) because the outcomes are complement different, the scaling is different (SST is different)
We need to “un-transform” the \(ln(y)\) back to the same scale as y and then compare,
- Estimate the model in the log equation to obtain the predicted outcome \(\hat{ln(y)}\)
- “Un-transform” the predicted outcome
\[ \hat{m} = exp(\hat{ln(y)}) \]
- Estimate the following model (without an intercept)
\[ y = \alpha\hat{m} + error \]
and obtain predicted outcome \(\hat{y}\)
- Then take the square of the correlation between \(\hat{y}\) and y as a scaled version of the \(R^2\) from the log model that can now compare with the usual \(R^2\) in the level model.