Hello,
I'm using Stata 16, and before posting this question I have read "STATA SPATIAL AUTOREGRESSIVE MODELS REFERENCE MANUAL RELEASE 16" thoroughly but couldn't find answers to this question. I also tried to Google the answer but couldn't find any.
Every time I use spregress, at the end of the results there will be a line saying "Wald test of spatial terms: ****"
The following are two examples from the manual:

My question is:
1. What is the null hypothesis of the Wald test of spatial terms
2. When do I reject the null hypothesis
3. What is the number in the parentheses after chi2? In the first screenshot, it's chi2(1). In the second screenshot, it's chi2(2)
4. In the second screenshot, the regression already takes into account the possible spatial correlation of error terms by adding errorlag(W), why does the estimation still perform Wald test of spatial terms?
5. Where may I find Stata documentations on the Wald test of spatial terms
I would really appreciate it if you could share with me your insights. Thank you.
I'm using Stata 16, and before posting this question I have read "STATA SPATIAL AUTOREGRESSIVE MODELS REFERENCE MANUAL RELEASE 16" thoroughly but couldn't find answers to this question. I also tried to Google the answer but couldn't find any.
Every time I use spregress, at the end of the results there will be a line saying "Wald test of spatial terms: ****"
The following are two examples from the manual:
My question is:
1. What is the null hypothesis of the Wald test of spatial terms
2. When do I reject the null hypothesis
3. What is the number in the parentheses after chi2? In the first screenshot, it's chi2(1). In the second screenshot, it's chi2(2)
4. In the second screenshot, the regression already takes into account the possible spatial correlation of error terms by adding errorlag(W), why does the estimation still perform Wald test of spatial terms?
5. Where may I find Stata documentations on the Wald test of spatial terms
I would really appreciate it if you could share with me your insights. Thank you.
Comment