IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/eejocm/v54y2025ics1755534524000630.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

New misspecification tests for multinomial logit models

Author

Listed:
  • Fok, Dennis
  • Paap, Richard

Abstract

Multinomial Logit [MNL] models are misspecified when the Independence of Irrelevant Assumption [IIA] does not hold. In this paper we compare existing tests for IIA with two newly proposed tests. Both new tests use that, when MNL is the true model, preferences across pairs of alternatives can be described by independent binary logit models. The first test compares Composite Likelihood parameter estimates based on pairs of alternatives with standard Maximum Likelihood estimates using a Hausman (1978) test. The second is a test for overidentification in a GMM framework using more pairs than necessary. A detailed Monte Carlo study shows that the GMM test is in general superior with respect to the performance under the null and under the alternative hypothesis. An empirical illustration demonstrates the practical usefulness of the tests.

Suggested Citation

  • Fok, Dennis & Paap, Richard, 2025. "New misspecification tests for multinomial logit models," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 54(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:eejocm:v:54:y:2025:i:c:s1755534524000630
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jocm.2024.100531
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1755534524000630
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jocm.2024.100531?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 look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Small, Kenneth A & Hsiao, Cheng, 1985. "Multinomial Logit Specification Tests," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 26(3), pages 619-627, October.
    2. Hansen, Lars Peter, 1982. "Large Sample Properties of Generalized Method of Moments Estimators," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(4), pages 1029-1054, July.
    3. Fry, Tim R. L. & Harris, Mark N., 1996. "A Monte Carlo study of tests for the independence of irrelevant alternatives property," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 19-30, February.
    4. Hausman, Jerry A & Wise, David A, 1978. "A Conditional Probit Model for Qualitative Choice: Discrete Decisions Recognizing Interdependence and Heterogeneous Preferences," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 46(2), pages 403-426, March.
    5. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, June.
    6. Ray, Paramesh, 1973. "Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 41(5), pages 987-991, September.
    7. Koen Bel & Dennis Fok & Richard Paap, 2018. "Parameter estimation in multivariate logit models with many binary choices," Econometric Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(5), pages 534-550, May.
    8. Geweke, John & Keane, Michael P & Runkle, David, 1994. "Alternative Computational Approaches to Inference in the Multinomial Probit Model," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 76(4), pages 609-632, November.
    9. Theil, Henri, 1969. "A Multinomial Extension of the Linear Logit Model," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 10(3), pages 251-259, October.
    10. Koppelman, Frank S. & Wen, Chieh-Hua, 2000. "The paired combinatorial logit model: properties, estimation and application," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 75-89, February.
    11. Hausman, Jerry & McFadden, Daniel, 1984. "Specification Tests for the Multinomial Logit Model," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(5), pages 1219-1240, September.
    12. Hausman, Jerry, 2015. "Specification tests in econometrics," Applied Econometrics, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), vol. 38(2), pages 112-134.
    13. Simon Cheng & J. Scott Long, 2007. "Testing for IIA in the Multinomial Logit Model," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 35(4), pages 583-600, May.
    14. Bjorn, Paul A. & Vuong, Quang H., 1985. "A note on the independence of irrelevant alternatives in probabilistic choice models," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 305-307.
    15. Gu, Yu & Chen, Anthony & Kitthamkesorn, Songyot, 2022. "Weibit choice models: Properties, mode choice application and graphical illustrations," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 44(C).
    16. Daniel McFadden & Kenneth Train, 2000. "Mixed MNL models for discrete response," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(5), pages 447-470.
    17. Mokhtarian, Patricia L., 2016. "Presenting the Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives property in a first course on logit modeling," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 21(C), pages 25-29.
    18. 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.
    19. Bunch, David S., 1991. "Estimability in the Multinomial Probit Model," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt1gf1t128, University of California Transportation Center.
    20. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    21. Bunch, David S., 1991. "Estimability in the multinomial probit model," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 1-12, February.
    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. Erik Stam & Roy Thurik & Peter van der Zwan, 2010. "Entrepreneurial exit in real and imagined markets," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 19(4), pages 1109-1139, August.
    2. Vijverberg, Wim P., 2011. "Testing for IIA with the Hausman-McFadden Test," IZA Discussion Papers 5826, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    3. Tinessa, Fiore & Marzano, Vittorio & Papola, Andrea, 2020. "Mixing distributions of tastes with a Combination of Nested Logit (CoNL) kernel: Formulation and performance analysis," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 1-23.
    4. Tinessa, Fiore, 2021. "Closed-form random utility models with mixture distributions of random utilities: Exploring finite mixtures of qGEV models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 262-288.
    5. Paleti, Rajesh, 2018. "Generalized multinomial probit Model: Accommodating constrained random parameters," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 248-262.
    6. Cohen, Michael, 2010. "A Structured Covariance Probit Demand Model," Research Reports 149970, University of Connecticut, Food Marketing Policy Center.
    7. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    8. Curtis, John & McCoy, Daire & Aravena, Claudia, 2018. "Heating system upgrades: The role of knowledge, socio-demographics, building attributes and energy infrastructure," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 183-196.
    9. Simon Cheng & J. Scott Long, 2007. "Testing for IIA in the Multinomial Logit Model," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 35(4), pages 583-600, May.
    10. repec:lic:licosd:27411 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Bartolj, Tjaša & Polanec, Sašo, 2012. "College major choice and ability: Why is general ability not enough?," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 31(6), pages 996-1016.
    12. Arjun Seshadri & Johan Ugander, 2020. "Fundamental Limits of Testing the Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives in Discrete Choice," Papers 2001.07042, arXiv.org.
    13. Yai, Tetsuo & Iwakura, Seiji & Morichi, Shigeru, 1997. "Multinomial probit with structured covariance for route choice behavior," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 195-207, June.
    14. Peter Davis & Pasquale Schiraldi, 2014. "The flexible coefficient multinomial logit (FC-MNL) model of demand for differentiated products," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 45(1), pages 32-63, March.
    15. Friederike Paetz & Winfried J. Steiner, 2017. "The benefits of incorporating utility dependencies in finite mixture probit models," OR Spectrum: Quantitative Approaches in Management, Springer;Gesellschaft für Operations Research e.V., vol. 39(3), pages 793-819, July.
    16. Daziano, Ricardo A., 2015. "Inference on mode preferences, vehicle purchases, and the energy paradox using a Bayesian structural choice model," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 1-26.
    17. Isler, Cassiano Augusto & Blumenfeld, Marcelo & Caldeira, Gabriel Pereira & Roberts, Clive, 2024. "Long-Distance railway mode choice in Brazil: Evidence from a discrete choice experiment," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    18. Cécile Détang‐Dessendre & Florence Goffette‐Nagot & Virginie Piguet, 2008. "Life Cycle And Migration To Urban And Rural Areas: Estimation Of A Mixed Logit Model On French Data," Journal of Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(4), pages 789-824, October.
    19. Mokhtarian, Patricia L., 2016. "Presenting the Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives property in a first course on logit modeling," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 21(C), pages 25-29.
    20. 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.
    21. Cécile Détang-Dessendre & Florence Goffette-Nagot & Virginie Piguet, 2004. "Life-cycle position and migration to urban and rural areas: estimations of a mixed logit model on French data," Working Papers 0403, Groupe d'Analyse et de Théorie Economique Lyon St-Étienne (GATE Lyon St-Étienne), Université de Lyon.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Discrete choices; Multinomial logit; IIA; Hausman test; Composite likelihood;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C25 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Discrete Regression and Qualitative Choice Models; Discrete Regressors; Proportions; Probabilities
    • C12 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Hypothesis Testing: General
    • C52 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric Modeling - - - Model Evaluation, Validation, and Selection

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:eejocm:v:54:y:2025:i:c:s1755534524000630. 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.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-choice-modelling .

    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.