IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/jns/jbstat/v225y2005i5p544-566.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Post-Randomization Under Test: Estimation of the Probit Model

Author

Listed:
  • Ronning Gerd

    (Department of Economics, University of Tuebingen, Mohlstrasse 36, D-72074 Tuebingen, Germany)

  • Rosemann Martin
  • Strotmann Harald

    (Institut for Applied Economic Research (IAW) Tuebingen, Ob dem Himmelreich 1, D-72074 Tuebingen, Germany)

Abstract

The paper analyzes effects of randomized response with respect to some binary dependent variable on the estimation of the probit model. This approach is used in interviews when asking sensitive questions or if a respondent erroneously chooses the wrong category in an interview leading to ‘misdassification’. Alternatively, randomization can be used for statistical disclosure control and then is called ‘post randomization method’ (PRAM). We consider two variants which are termed ‘ordinary’ and ‘invariant’ PRAM the latter being of importance mainly in descriptive analysis. Maximum likelihood estimation of the corrected likelihood results in consistent estimates although variances increase considerably for ‘strong’ randomization. Moreover a finite sample bias has been observed in the simulation study, but it is much less pronounced than the bias implied from use of the ‘naive’ probit estimator when the binary dependent variable has been randomized. Effects of randomization on the probit estimates are also illustrated by an empirical study using cross-section data from the German ‘ΑΒ establishment panel’ (IAB Betriebspanel). The decision of firms to accept a collective bargaining agreement (‘Tarifvertrag’) is analyzed in a binary probit model using both original data and data masked by ordinary and invariant PRAM. Here, too, a remarkable bias is observed in case of ‘strong’ randomization.

Suggested Citation

  • Ronning Gerd & Rosemann Martin & Strotmann Harald, 2005. "Post-Randomization Under Test: Estimation of the Probit Model," Journal of Economics and Statistics (Jahrbuecher fuer Nationaloekonomie und Statistik), De Gruyter, vol. 225(5), pages 544-566, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:jns:jbstat:v:225:y:2005:i:5:p:544-566
    DOI: 10.1515/jbnst-2005-0505
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/jbnst-2005-0505
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1515/jbnst-2005-0505?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ronning, Gerd, 2005. "Randomized response and the binary probit model," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 86(2), pages 221-228, February.
    2. Frazis, Harley & Loewenstein, Mark A., 2003. "Estimating linear regressions with mismeasured, possibly endogenous, binary explanatory variables," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 117(1), pages 151-178, November.
    3. Hausman, J. A. & Abrevaya, Jason & Scott-Morton, F. M., 1998. "Misclassification of the dependent variable in a discrete-response setting," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 87(2), pages 239-269, September.
    4. Han, Aaron K., 1987. "Non-parametric analysis of a generalized regression model : The maximum rank correlation estimator," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 35(2-3), pages 303-316, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Gerd Ronning, 2014. "Vertraulichkeit und Verfügbarkeit von Mikrodaten," IAW Discussion Papers 101, Institut für Angewandte Wirtschaftsforschung (IAW).
    2. Gerd Ronning, 2006. "Microeconometric models and anonymized micro data," AStA Advances in Statistical Analysis, Springer;German Statistical Society, vol. 90(1), pages 153-166, March.

    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. Ronning, Gerd, 2005. "Randomized response and the binary probit model," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 86(2), pages 221-228, February.
    2. Gerd Ronning, 2006. "Microeconometric models and anonymized micro data," AStA Advances in Statistical Analysis, Springer;German Statistical Society, vol. 90(1), pages 153-166, March.
    3. Gerd Ronning & Martin Rosemann, 2006. "Estimation of the Probit Model from Anonymized Micro Data," IAW Discussion Papers 25, Institut für Angewandte Wirtschaftsforschung (IAW).
    4. Nguimkeu, Pierre & Denteh, Augustine & Tchernis, Rusty, 2019. "On the estimation of treatment effects with endogenous misreporting," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 208(2), pages 487-506.
    5. Adele Bergin, 2015. "Employer Changes and Wage Changes: Estimation with Measurement Error in a Binary Variable," LABOUR, CEIS, vol. 29(2), pages 194-223, June.
    6. Craig Gundersen & Brent Kreider, 2008. "Food Stamps and Food Insecurity: What Can Be Learned in the Presence of Nonclassical Measurement Error?," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 43(2), pages 352-382.
    7. Zhang, Han, 2021. "How Using Machine Learning Classification as a Variable in Regression Leads to Attenuation Bias and What to Do About It," SocArXiv 453jk, Center for Open Science.
    8. Frazis, Harley & Loewenstein, Mark A., 2003. "Estimating linear regressions with mismeasured, possibly endogenous, binary explanatory variables," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 117(1), pages 151-178, November.
    9. Dustmann C. & Van Soest A., 2004. "An Analysis of Speaking Fluency of Immigrants Using Ordered Response Models With Classification Errors," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 22, pages 312-321, July.
    10. Wossen, Tesfamicheal & Abay, Kibrom A. & Abdoulaye, Tahirou, 2022. "Misperceiving and misreporting input quality: Implications for input use and productivity," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    11. Augustine Denteh & D'esir'e K'edagni, 2022. "Misclassification in Difference-in-differences Models," Papers 2207.11890, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2022.
    12. Lorenzo Almada & Ian McCarthy & Rusty Tchernis, 2016. "What Can We Learn about the Effects of Food Stamps on Obesity in the Presence of Misreporting?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 98(4), pages 997-1017.
    13. Dye, Richard F. & McMillen, Daniel P., 2007. "Teardowns and land values in the Chicago metropolitan area," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(1), pages 45-63, January.
    14. Adele Bergin, 2013. "Job Changes and Wage Changes: Estimation with Measurement Error in a Binary Variable," Economics Department Working Paper Series n240-13.pdf, Department of Economics, National University of Ireland - Maynooth.
    15. Takahide Yanagi, 2019. "Inference on local average treatment effects for misclassified treatment," Econometric Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(8), pages 938-960, September.
    16. Fiona Scott Morton, 1996. "Entry and Predation: British Shipping Cartels 1879-1929," NBER Working Papers 5663, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    17. Bruce Meyer & Nikolas Mittag, 2013. "Misclassification In Binary Choice Models," Working Papers 13-27, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
    18. Francis DiTraglia & Camilo Garcia-Jimeno, 2015. "On Mis-measured Binary Regressors: New Results And Some Comments on the Literature, Second Version," PIER Working Paper Archive 15-039, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania, revised 11 Nov 2015.
    19. Brent Kreider & John V. Pepper & Manan Roy, 2020. "Does The Women, Infants, And Children Program Improve Infant Health Outcomes?," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 58(4), pages 1731-1756, October.
    20. Khai Xiang Chiong & Matthew Shum, 2019. "Random Projection Estimation of Discrete-Choice Models with Large Choice Sets," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(1), pages 256-271, January.

    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:jns:jbstat:v:225:y:2005:i:5:p:544-566. 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: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyter.com .

    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.