IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/transb/v114y2018icp241-253.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Overidentification tests for the exogeneity of instruments in discrete choice models

Author

Listed:
  • Guevara, C. Angelo

Abstract

Endogeneity is often present in discrete choice models, precluding the consistent estimation of the model parameters. To correct for this problem, the researcher needs to gather exogenous instrumental variables, which should be independent of the error term of the model. This critical assumption can be tested using overidentification tests that rely on having more instruments than endogenous variables. For discrete choice models, instruments’ exogeneity can be assessed using the Amemiya-Lee-Newey test, which relies in the estimation of an auxiliary GMM model build from reduced-form estimates. This paper proposes two alternative tests that are constructed as adaptations of the Refutability test and the Hausman test, into the discrete choice framework. The Refutability test consists in including instruments as additional variables in an auxiliary model that was corrected for endogeneity using all instruments available. The Hausman test is built from the comparison of the estimates attained using different subsets of instruments. Using a binary choice Monte Carlo experiment, the three tests are assessed in terms of size, power, and robustness to De Blander's condition for which all overidentification tests of this kind are blind. Results show that what is termed the modified Refutability test, which includes all instruments simultaneously, has smaller size distortion, larger power, and more robustness, compared to the state of the art Amemiya-Lee-Newey test and to the proposed Hausman test. Besides, the Amemiya-Lee-Newey and both versions of the Refutability test allow being agnostic about which instrument might be exogenous. The paper finishes highlighting the methodological and practical implications and limitations of these findings and suggesting future lines of research in this area.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:transb:v:114:y:2018:i:c:p:241-253
    DOI: 10.1016/j.trb.2018.05.020
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191261518302303
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    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. repec:ags:stataj:119292 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. 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.
    4. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, June.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Rembert De Blander, 2008. "Which null hypothesis do overidentification restrictions actually test?," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 3(76), pages 1-9.
    8. Newey, Whitney K., 1987. "Efficient estimation of limited dependent variable models with endogenous explanatory variables," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 231-250, November.
    9. Hausman, Jerry & McFadden, Daniel, 1984. "Specification Tests for the Multinomial Logit Model," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(5), pages 1219-1240, September.
    10. Jeffrey M Wooldridge, 2010. "Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 2, volume 1, number 0262232588, March.
    11. repec:ebl:ecbull:v:3:y:2008:i:76:p:1-9 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Hausman, Jerry, 2015. "Specification tests in econometrics," Applied Econometrics, Publishing House "SINERGIA PRESS", vol. 38(2), pages 112-134.
    13. Heckman, James J, 1978. "Dummy Endogenous Variables in a Simultaneous Equation System," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 46(4), pages 931-959, July.
    14. Parente, Paulo M.D.C. & Santos Silva, J.M.C., 2012. "A cautionary note on tests of overidentifying restrictions," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 115(2), pages 314-317.
    15. repec:eee:jaitra:v:64:y:2017:i:pa:p:91-99 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Austin Nichols, 2007. "Causal inference with observational data," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 7(4), pages 507-541, December.
    17. 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.
    18. Amemiya, Takeshi, 1978. "The Estimation of a Simultaneous Equation Generalized Probit Model," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 46(5), pages 1193-1205, September.
    19. K. Newey, Whitney, 1985. "Generalized method of moments specification testing," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 229-256, September.
    20. repec:kap:transp:v:45:y:2018:i:2:d:10.1007_s11116-017-9851-6 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. 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.
    22. 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.
    23. 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.
    24. 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.
    25. 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.
    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. repec:eee:transb:v:123:y:2019:i:c:p:224-239 is not listed on IDEAS

    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:transb:v:114:y:2018:i:c:p:241-253. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/548/description#description .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.