Skip to contentScholarGate
LibraryBookshelfDeskReview StudioAssistant
Sign in
On this page
IntuitionHow it worksWhen to use itStrengths & limitationsCommon pitfallsApplicationsFrequently asked🔒 Read the full methodSourcesRelated methods
Cite this pageSpotted an issue on this page? Report or suggest a fix →
Home›Econometrics›Breusch-Godfrey LM Test for Serial Correlation
Regression model

Breusch-Godfrey LM Test for Serial Correlation

Also known as: BG test, LM test for autocorrelation, Breusch-Godfrey serial correlation test, Breusch-Godfrey otokorelasyon testi

The Breusch-Godfrey test is a Lagrange-multiplier test for serial correlation in regression residuals, developed independently by Trevor Breusch (1978) and Leslie Godfrey (1978). Unlike the Durbin-Watson test, it detects autocorrelation up to any chosen order p, remains valid when the model includes lagged dependent variables, and produces a definite chi-square p-value rather than an inconclusive region — making it the modern standard for autocorrelation testing.

ScholarGate
  1. Regression model
  2. v1
  3. 2 Sources
  4. PUBLISHED
Cite this page →
Tools & resources
Download slides
Learn & explore

Read the full method

Members only

Sign in with a free account to read this section.

Sign in

Method map

The neighbourhood of related methods — select a node to explore.

Breusch-Godfrey Test
ARIMADurbin-Watson TestOLS RegressionLjung-Box TestPesaran CD Test

When to use it

Use the Breusch-Godfrey test as the default check for serial correlation in time-series regressions, especially when the model contains lagged dependent variables or when autocorrelation beyond the first order is plausible — situations where the Durbin-Watson test is invalid or insufficient. Choose the order p to reflect the data frequency (for example, p = 4 for quarterly or p = 12 for monthly data to capture seasonality). It assumes the model is otherwise correctly specified; a rejection can in principle reflect dynamic misspecification rather than pure autocorrelation. When serial correlation is confirmed, report HAC standard errors or respecify the dynamics.

Strengths & limitations

Strengths
  • Tests autocorrelation up to any order p, capturing higher-order and seasonal patterns.
  • Remains valid when regressors include lagged dependent variables, unlike Durbin-Watson.
  • Yields a definite chi-square p-value with no inconclusive region.
  • Computed easily as an auxiliary regression and widely implemented.
Limitations
  • Requires the user to choose the lag order p, which affects power.
  • A rejection may reflect general dynamic misspecification rather than autocorrelation alone.
  • Relies on an asymptotic chi-square approximation, so it needs a reasonable sample size.
  • Diagnoses the problem but does not by itself provide the corrected estimates.

Frequently asked

Why use Breusch-Godfrey instead of Durbin-Watson?

Breusch-Godfrey tests autocorrelation up to any order, stays valid when the model includes a lagged dependent variable, and gives a clear chi-square p-value with no inconclusive region. Durbin-Watson only checks first-order correlation, is invalid with lagged dependent variables, and can be inconclusive.

How do I choose the lag order p?

Match it to the data: p = 1 for a basic first-order check, or p equal to the seasonal period (4 for quarterly, 12 for monthly) to capture seasonal autocorrelation. Reporting results for a couple of sensible orders is good practice.

What should I do if the test rejects?

Serial correlation leaves OLS coefficients unbiased but their standard errors wrong. Report HAC (Newey-West) standard errors, or respecify the dynamics (e.g., add lags) so the residuals become serially uncorrelated.

Sources

  1. Godfrey, L. G. (1978). Testing against general autoregressive and moving average error models when the regressors include lagged dependent variables. Econometrica, 46(6), 1293–1301. DOI: 10.2307/1913829 ↗
  2. Breusch, T. S. (1978). Testing for autocorrelation in dynamic linear models. Australian Economic Papers, 17(31), 334–355. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8454.1978.tb00635.x ↗

How to cite this page

ScholarGate. (2026, June 2). Breusch-Godfrey LM Test for Serial Correlation. ScholarGate. https://scholargate.app/en/econometrics/breusch-godfrey-test

Related methods

ARIMADurbin-Watson TestOLS Regression

Which method?

Set this method beside its closest kin and read them side by side — the library lays the books on the table; the choice is yours.

  • ARIMAEconometrics↔ compare
  • Durbin-Watson TestEconometrics↔ compare
  • OLS RegressionEconometrics↔ compare
Compare side by side →

Referenced by

Durbin-Watson TestLjung-Box TestPesaran CD Test

Similar methods

Durbin-Watson TestBreusch-Pagan TestLjung-Box TestARCH-LM TestNewey-West HACAugmented Dickey-Fuller TestPhillips-Perron TestBreitung Test

Related reference concepts

EconometricsLikelihood-Ratio TestsStructural Equation ModelingMathematical and Quantitative MethodsMultivariate Multiple RegressionMultivariate Regression

Spotted an issue on this page? Report or suggest a fix →

ScholarGate — Breusch-Godfrey Test (Breusch-Godfrey LM Test for Serial Correlation). Retrieved 2026-07-21 from https://scholargate.app/en/econometrics/breusch-godfrey-test · Dataset: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20539026
Quick facts
Originator
Trevor Breusch & Leslie Godfrey
Year
1978
Type
Lagrange-multiplier test for serial correlation
NullHypothesis
No autocorrelation up to order p
Distribution
Chi-square
MinSample
30
Related methods
ARIMADurbin-Watson TestOLS Regression
ScholarGate

A content-first reference library for research methods — what each one is, how it works, and where it comes from.

Open data (CC-BY)

Explore

  • Library
  • Search the library…
  • Browse by field
  • Fields
  • Journey
  • Compare
  • Which method?

Reference

  • Subjects
  • Atlas
  • Glossary
  • Methodology
  • Philosophy

Your tools

  • Bookshelf
  • Desk
  • Chat

Company

  • About
  • Pricing
  • Contact
  • Suggest a method

Entries are compiled from published sources for reference. Verifying the accuracy and suitability of any information for your own use remains your responsibility.

© 2026 ScholarGate · A research-method reference library
  • Privacy
  • Cookies
  • Terms
  • Delete account