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›Statistics›Robust Hausman Specification Test
Regression model

Robust Hausman Specification Test

Heteroscedasticity- and Autocorrelation-Robust Hausman Specification Test · Also known as: robust hausman specification test, cluster-robust hausman test, Robust Hausman Testi

The Robust Hausman Test is a heteroscedasticity- and autocorrelation-robust version of the Hausman specification test, used to choose between fixed-effects and random-effects estimators in panel-data models. It builds on Hausman's 1978 test and the robust treatment of correlated effects developed by Arellano (1993).

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.

Robust Hausman Test
OLS RegressionPanel Fixed EffectsPermutation TestRandom Effects ModelWild Bootstrap

When to use it

Use this test with panel data when you have at least about 50 observations and need to choose between fixed- and random-effects specifications, and especially when the panel errors may be heteroscedastic or serially correlated so that the classical Hausman test is unreliable. It assumes a panel structure is available, a consistent fixed-effects estimator exists, and that robust (cluster-robust) standard errors are applied. It is not suitable for very small panels: with fewer than 20 units a wild bootstrap is preferred, and with fewer than 10 units a permutation test is the better choice.

Strengths & limitations

Strengths
  • Stays valid under heteroscedasticity and autocorrelation, where the classical Hausman test can break down.
  • Gives a principled, data-driven choice between fixed- and random-effects panel models.
  • Builds directly on a robust variance, so it tolerates clustered and non-constant error variance common in panel data.
Limitations
  • Requires a reasonably sized panel (at least about 50 observations) to be trustworthy.
  • Becomes unreliable in very small panels: under 20 units a wild bootstrap is preferred, and under 10 units a permutation test.
  • Depends on having a consistent fixed-effects estimator and on correctly specifying the robust covariance.

Frequently asked

How is the robust Hausman test different from the classical one?

The classical Hausman test assumes the random-effects estimator is fully efficient, so its variance is the simple difference of the two estimators' variances. Under heteroscedasticity or autocorrelation that assumption fails and the statistic can be unreliable or even negative. The robust version replaces that variance with a robust (cluster-robust) covariance, giving a valid Wald-type chi-square statistic.

What does a significant result mean?

A large, significant statistic rejects the random-effects assumption: the unit effects appear correlated with the predictors, so the fixed-effects estimator is the consistent choice. A non-significant result is consistent with random effects, which is also more efficient.

What sample size do I need?

At least about 50 observations for the test to be trustworthy. With fewer than 20 panel units a wild bootstrap is preferred, and with fewer than 10 units a permutation test is more appropriate.

Do I have to use robust standard errors?

Yes. The whole point of the robust variant is that the contrast between the fixed- and random-effects estimates is weighted by a robust covariance that allows for heteroscedasticity and autocorrelation, so robust (cluster-robust) standard errors must be applied.

Sources

  1. Hausman, J. A. (1978). Specification Tests in Econometrics. Econometrica, 46(6), 1251-1271. DOI: 10.2307/1913827 ↗
  2. Arellano, M. (1993). On the Testing of Correlated Effects with Panel Data. Journal of Econometrics, 59(1-2), 87-97. DOI: 10.1016/0304-4076(93)90040-C ↗

How to cite this page

ScholarGate. (2026, June 1). Heteroscedasticity- and Autocorrelation-Robust Hausman Specification Test. ScholarGate. https://scholargate.app/en/statistics/robust-hausman-test

Related methods

OLS RegressionPanel Fixed EffectsPermutation TestRandom Effects ModelWild Bootstrap

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.

  • OLS RegressionEconometrics↔ compare
  • Panel Fixed EffectsEconometrics↔ compare
  • Permutation TestStatistics↔ compare
  • Random Effects ModelEconometrics↔ compare
  • Wild BootstrapStatistics↔ compare
Compare side by side →

Similar methods

Panel Hausman TestHausman TestStructural Break Hausman TestRandom Effects Panel ModelRobust Random Effects ModelRobust Panel Data AnalysisRobust Fixed Effects ModelFixed Effects Panel Model

Related reference concepts

EconometricsHeterogeneity in Meta-AnalysisHeterogeneity in Meta-AnalysisMultiple or Simultaneous Equation Models • Multiple VariablesPermutation TestsStructural Equation Modeling

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

ScholarGate — Robust Hausman Test (Heteroscedasticity- and Autocorrelation-Robust Hausman Specification Test). Retrieved 2026-07-21 from https://scholargate.app/en/statistics/robust-hausman-test · Dataset: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20539026
Quick facts
Originator
Hausman (1978); robust variant after Arellano (1993)
Year
1978
Type
Panel model specification test
Estimator
Robust Wald-type contrast of fixed- vs random-effects estimates
Outcome
model choice (fixed vs random effects)
Related methods
OLS RegressionPanel Fixed EffectsPermutation TestRandom Effects ModelWild Bootstrap
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