IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/transa/v82y2015icp240-254.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Critical assessment of five methods to correct for endogeneity in discrete-choice models

Author

Listed:
  • Guevara, C. Angelo

Abstract

Endogeneity often arises in discrete-choice models, precluding the consistent estimation of the model parameters, but it is habitually neglected in practical applications. The purpose of this article is to contribute in closing that gap by assessing five methods to address endogeneity in this context: the use of Proxys (PR); the two steps Control-Function (CF) method; the simultaneous estimation of the CF method via Maximum-Likelihood (ML); the Multiple Indicator Solution (MIS); and the integration of Latent-Variables (LV). The assessment is first made qualitatively, in terms of the formulation, normalization and data needs of each method. Then, the evaluation is made quantitatively, by means of a Monte Carlo experiment to study the finite sample properties under a unified data generation process, and to analyze the impact of common flaws. The methods studied differ notably in the range of problems that they can address; their underlying assumptions; the difficulty of gathering proper auxiliary variables needed to apply them; and their practicality, both in terms of the need for coding and their computational burden. The analysis developed in this article shows that PR is formally inappropriate for many cases, but it is easy to apply, and often corrects in the right direction. CF is also easy to apply with canned software, but requires instrumental variables which may be hard to collect in various contexts. Since CF is estimated in two stages, it may also compromise efficiency and difficult the estimation of standard errors. ML guarantees efficiency and direct estimation of the standard errors, but at the cost of larger computational burden required for the estimation of a multifold integral, with potential difficulties in identification, and retaining the difficulty of gathering proper instrumental variables. The MIS method appears relatively easy to apply and requiring indicators that may be easier to obtain in various cases. Finally, the LV approach appears as the more versatile method, but at a high cost in computational burden, problems of identification and limitations in the capability of writing proper structural equations for the latent variable.

Suggested Citation

  • Guevara, C. Angelo, 2015. "Critical assessment of five methods to correct for endogeneity in discrete-choice models," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 240-254.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:transa:v:82:y:2015:i:c:p:240-254
    DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2015.10.005
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965856415002554
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.tra.2015.10.005?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Guevara, Cristian Angelo & Thomas, Alan, 2007. "Multiple classification analysis in trip production models," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 14(6), pages 514-522, November.
    2. Ferreira, Fernando, 2010. "You can take it with you: Proposition 13 tax benefits, residential mobility, and willingness to pay for housing amenities," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(9-10), pages 661-673, October.
    3. Walker, Joan & Ben-Akiva, Moshe, 2002. "Generalized random utility model," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 303-343, July.
    4. Tamer, Elie, 2010. "Partial Identification in Econometrics," Scholarly Articles 34728615, Harvard University Department of Economics.
    5. Nevo, Aviv, 2001. "Measuring Market Power in the Ready-to-Eat Cereal Industry," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 69(2), pages 307-342, March.
    6. Jerry A. Hausman, 1996. "Valuation of New Goods under Perfect and Imperfect Competition," NBER Chapters, in: The Economics of New Goods, pages 207-248, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Jeffrey M Wooldridge, 2010. "Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 2, volume 1, number 0262232588, December.
    8. repec:ebl:ecbull:v:3:y:2008:i:76:p:1-9 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Heckman, James J, 1978. "Dummy Endogenous Variables in a Simultaneous Equation System," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 46(4), pages 931-959, July.
    10. Douglas Staiger & James H. Stock, 1997. "Instrumental Variables Regression with Weak Instruments," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 65(3), pages 557-586, May.
    11. K. Newey, Whitney, 1985. "Generalized method of moments specification testing," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 229-256, September.
    12. Andrew Chesher, 2005. "Nonparametric Identification under Discrete Variation," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 73(5), pages 1525-1550, September.
    13. Glerum, Aurélie & Atasoy, Bilge & Bierlaire, Michel, 2014. "Using semi-open questions to integrate perceptions in choice models," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 10(C), pages 11-33.
    14. Cristian Angelo Guevara & Moshe E. Ben-Akiva, 2012. "Change of Scale and Forecasting with the Control-Function Method in Logit Models," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(3), pages 425-437, August.
    15. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387.
    16. Rivers, Douglas & Vuong, Quang H., 1988. "Limited information estimators and exogeneity tests for simultaneous probit models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 347-366, November.
    17. Andrew Chesher & Adam M. Rosen & Konrad Smolinski, 2013. "An instrumental variable model of multiple discrete choice," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 4(2), pages 157-196, July.
    18. White, Halbert, 1982. "Maximum Likelihood Estimation of Misspecified Models," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(1), pages 1-25, January.
    19. Pinar Karaca-Mandic & Kenneth Train, 2003. "Standard error correction in two-stage estimation with nested samples," Econometrics Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 6(2), pages 401-407, December.
    20. Andrew Chesher, 2003. "Identification in Nonseparable Models," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 71(5), pages 1405-1441, September.
    21. Rembert De Blander, 2008. "Which null hypothesis do overidentification restrictions actually test?," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 3(76), pages 1-9.
    22. Andrew Chesher, 2010. "Instrumental Variable Models for Discrete Outcomes," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 78(2), pages 575-601, March.
    23. Berry, Steven & Levinsohn, James & Pakes, Ariel, 1995. "Automobile Prices in Market Equilibrium," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 63(4), pages 841-890, July.
    24. Matzkin, Rosa L., 2007. "Nonparametric identification," Handbook of Econometrics, in: J.J. Heckman & E.E. Leamer (ed.), Handbook of Econometrics, edition 1, volume 6, chapter 73, Elsevier.
    25. Joan L. Walker & Moshe Ben-Akiva & Denis Bolduc, 2007. "Identification of parameters in normal error component logit-mixture (NECLM) models," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(6), pages 1095-1125.
    26. John M. Quigley, 1976. "Housing Demand in the Short Run: An Analysis of Polytomous Choice," NBER Chapters, in: Explorations in Economic Research, Volume 3, number 1, pages 76-102, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    27. Abay, Kibrom A. & Paleti, Rajesh & Bhat, Chandra R., 2013. "The joint analysis of injury severity of drivers in two-vehicle crashes accommodating seat belt use endogeneity," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 74-89.
    28. Lee, Lung-Fei, 1982. "Specification error in multinomial logit models : Analysis of the omitted variable bias," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 197-209, November.
    29. Mark Wardman & Gerard Whelan, 2011. "Twenty Years of Rail Crowding Valuation Studies: Evidence and Lessons from British Experience," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(3), pages 379-398.
    30. Cherchi, Elisabetta & Guevara, Cristian Angelo, 2012. "A Monte Carlo experiment to analyze the curse of dimensionality in estimating random coefficients models with a full variance–covariance matrix," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 321-332.
    31. Guevara, C. Angelo & Ben-Akiva, Moshe E., 2013. "Sampling of alternatives in Logit Mixture models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 185-198.
    32. Elie Tamer, 2010. "Partial Identification in Econometrics," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 2(1), pages 167-195, September.
    33. Yáñez, M.F. & Raveau, S. & Ortúzar, J. de D., 2010. "Inclusion of latent variables in Mixed Logit models: Modelling and forecasting," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 44(9), pages 744-753, November.
    34. Bhat, Chandra R. & Guo, Jessica, 2004. "A mixed spatially correlated logit model: formulation and application to residential choice modeling," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 147-168, February.
    35. Ruud, Paul A, 1983. "Sufficient Conditions for the Consistency of Maximum Likelihood Estimation Despite Misspecifications of Distribution in Multinomial Discrete Choice Models," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 51(1), pages 225-228, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Guevara, C. Angelo, 2018. "Overidentification tests for the exogeneity of instruments in discrete choice models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 241-253.
    2. Cristian Angelo Guevara & Moshe E. Ben-Akiva, 2012. "Change of Scale and Forecasting with the Control-Function Method in Logit Models," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(3), pages 425-437, August.
    3. Thomas E. Guerrero & C. Angelo Guevara & Elisabetta Cherchi & Juan de Dios Ortúzar, 2021. "Addressing endogeneity in strategic urban mode choice models," Transportation, Springer, vol. 48(4), pages 2081-2102, August.
    4. Gopalakrishnan, Raja & Guevara, C. Angelo & Ben-Akiva, Moshe, 2020. "Combining multiple imputation and control function methods to deal with missing data and endogeneity in discrete-choice models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 45-57.
    5. Fernández-Antolín, Anna & Guevara, C. Angelo & de Lapparent, Matthieu & Bierlaire, Michel, 2016. "Correcting for endogeneity due to omitted attitudes: Empirical assessment of a modified MIS method using RP mode choice data," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 20(C), pages 1-15.
    6. Guevara, C. Angelo & Hess, Stephane, 2019. "A control-function approach to correct for endogeneity in discrete choice models estimated on SP-off-RP data and contrasts with an earlier FIML approach by Train & Wilson," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 224-239.
    7. Lurkin, Virginie & Garrow, Laurie A. & Higgins, Matthew J. & Newman, Jeffrey P. & Schyns, Michael, 2017. "Accounting for price endogeneity in airline itinerary choice models: An application to Continental U.S. markets," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 228-246.
    8. Guerrero, Thomas E. & Guevara, C. Angelo & Cherchi, Elisabetta & Ortúzar, Juan de Dios, 2022. "Characterizing the impact of discrete indicators to correct for endogeneity in discrete choice models," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 42(C).
    9. Guevara, C. Angelo & Tirachini, Alejandro & Hurtubia, Ricardo & Dekker, Thijs, 2020. "Correcting for endogeneity due to omitted crowding in public transport choice using the Multiple Indicator Solution (MIS) method," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 472-484.
    10. Pietro Tebaldi & Alexander Torgovitsky & Hanbin Yang, 2023. "Nonparametric Estimates of Demand in the California Health Insurance Exchange," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 91(1), pages 107-146, January.
    11. Hotle, Susan L. & Castillo, Marco & Garrow, Laurie A. & Higgins, Matthew J., 2015. "The impact of advance purchase deadlines on airline consumers’ search and purchase behaviors," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 1-16.
    12. Nicolai V. Kuminoff & V. Kerry Smith & Christopher Timmins, 2010. "The New Economics of Equilibrium Sorting and its Transformational Role for Policy Evaluation," NBER Working Papers 16349, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Chesher, Andrew, 2013. "Semiparametric Structural Models Of Binary Response: Shape Restrictions And Partial Identification," Econometric Theory, Cambridge University Press, vol. 29(2), pages 231-266, April.
    14. Guevara, C. Angelo & Tang, Yue & Gao, Song, 2018. "The initial condition problem with complete history dependency in learning models for travel choices," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 117(PB), pages 850-861.
    15. Amil Petrin & Kenneth Train, 2003. "Omitted Product Attributes in Discrete Choice Models," NBER Working Papers 9452, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Lina Zhang & David T. Frazier & D. S. Poskitt & Xueyan Zhao, 2020. "Decomposing Identification Gains and Evaluating Instrument Identification Power for Partially Identified Average Treatment Effects," Papers 2009.02642, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2022.
    17. Yonezawa, Koichi & Richards, Timothy J., 2016. "Competitive Package Size Decisions," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 92(4), pages 445-469.
    18. Chesher, Andrew & Smolinski, Konrad, 2012. "IV models of ordered choice," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 166(1), pages 33-48.
    19. van Cranenburgh, Sander & Prato, Carlo G., 2016. "On the robustness of random regret minimization modelling outcomes towards omitted attributes," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 51-70.
    20. Arthur Lewbel, 2019. "The Identification Zoo: Meanings of Identification in Econometrics," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 57(4), pages 835-903, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:transa:v:82:y:2015:i:c:p:240-254. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/547/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.