Table 2A. Monte Carlo simulation results
N = 30,T = 300,7L^.U[0.5,1.5],£dk=Pz=0.9,ad^^_U[0.5, 1.5]
|
A) Regression I | ||||||
|
Mean |
SSD |
Min. |
Max. |
Skew. |
Kurt-3 | |
|
MG________________________________ | ||||||
|
ʌ |
1.4110 |
.0637 |
1.2563 |
1.6184 |
.1564 |
-.1977 |
|
ʌ SEι(θ) |
.0234 |
.0034 |
.0137 |
.0365 |
.0983 |
.0359 |
|
FE_________________________________________ | ||||||
|
ʌ |
1.4053 |
.0629 |
1.2459 |
1.5887 |
.1382 |
-.2571 |
|
ʌ SEι(θ) |
.0065 |
.0002 |
.0060 |
.0072 |
.1899 |
-.0861 |
|
POLS_______________________________________ | ||||||
|
ʌ |
1.3899 |
.0619 |
1.2368 |
1.5744 |
.1564 |
-.1977 |
|
ʌ SEι(θ) |
.0064 |
.0002 |
.0059 |
.0071 |
.0770 |
-.1795 |
|
B) Regression II | ||||||
|
Mean |
SSD |
Min. |
Max. |
Skew. |
Kurt-3 | |
|
MG_______________________________ | ||||||
|
ʌ |
1.0397 |
.0154 |
1.0065 |
1.1210 |
.9317 |
1.7659 |
|
ʌ SEi (b) |
.0060 |
.0013 |
.0031 |
.0121 |
.7812 |
1.1088 |
|
FE_________________________________________ | ||||||
|
ʌ |
1.0373 |
.0158 |
1.0077 |
1.1058 |
.7595 |
.8561 |
|
ʌ SEi (b) |
.0044 |
.0002 |
.0039 |
.0053 |
.6836 |
.6280 |
|
POLS_______________________________________ | ||||||
|
ʌ |
1.0351 |
.0150 |
1.0054 |
1.0959 |
.7117 |
.6410 |
|
ʌ SEi (b) |
.0043 |
.0002 |
.0039 |
.0051 |
.6538 |
.4204 |
23
More intriguing information
1. Making International Human Rights Protection More Effective: A Rational-Choice Approach to the Effectiveness of Ius Standi Provisions2. Staying on the Dole
3. From Aurora Borealis to Carpathians. Searching the Road to Regional and Rural Development
4. Evaluating the Success of the School Commodity Food Program
5. LOCAL CONTROL AND IMPROVEMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICE
6. A Study of Adult 'Non-Singers' In Newfoundland
7. Der Einfluß der Direktdemokratie auf die Sozialpolitik
8. The name is absent
9. Fiscal federalism and Fiscal Autonomy: Lessons for the UK from other Industrialised Countries
10. DISCRIMINATORY APPROACH TO AUDITORY STIMULI IN GUINEA FOWL (NUMIDA MELEAGRIS) AFTER HYPERSTRIATAL∕HIPPOCAMP- AL BRAIN DAMAGE