Table 7: LR of the AIDS vs. the QUAIDS
model 1: AIDS with symmetry and homogeneity restrictions
model 2: QUAIDS with symmetry and homogeneity restrictions
|
Modell |
df4 |
log lik.2> |
ddf3) |
LR |
p -value sig.4 |
|
1988 1 |
52 |
12,641.22 | |||
|
2 |
60 |
12,649.86 |
8 |
17.28 |
0.0273 ** |
|
1993 1 |
52 |
7,708.46 | |||
|
2 |
60 |
7,711.36 |
8 |
5.80 |
0.6696 |
|
1998 1 |
52 |
4,738.93 | |||
|
2 |
60 |
4,754.24 |
8 |
30.62 |
0.0001 *** |
|
2003 1 |
52 |
3,475.45 | |||
|
2 |
60 |
3,494.32 |
8 |
37.74 |
0.0000 *** |
4 degrees of freedom
4 log likelihood value
3 difference between degrees of freedom of the two models
4) level of significance: * = 0.1, **=0.05, ***=0.01
45
More intriguing information
1. Regionale Wachstumseffekte der GRW-Förderung? Eine räumlich-ökonometrische Analyse auf Basis deutscher Arbeitsmarktregionen2. The English Examining Boards: Their route from independence to government outsourcing agencies
3. Private tutoring at transition points in the English education system: its nature, extent and purpose
4. The name is absent
5. Benchmarking Regional Innovation: A Comparison of Bavaria, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland
6. The name is absent
7. Do imputed education histories provide satisfactory results in fertility analysis in the Western German context?
8. Before and After the Hartz Reforms: The Performance of Active Labour Market Policy in Germany
9. Firm Closure, Financial Losses and the Consequences for an Entrepreneurial Restart
10. The name is absent