IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/fth/tilbur/9018.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Testing For Selectivity Bias In Panel Data Models

Author

Listed:
  • VERBEEK, M.
  • NIJMAN, T.

Abstract

The authors discuss several tests to check for the presence of selectivity bias in estimators based on panel data. One approach to test for selectivity bias is to specify the selection mechanism explicitly and estimate it jointly with the model of interest. Alternatively, one can derive the asymptotically efficient Lagrange multiplier test. Both approaches are computationally demanding. In this paper, the authors propose the use of simple variable addition and (quasi-) Hausman tests for selectivity bias that do not require any knowledge of the response process. They compare the power of these tests with the asymptotically efficient test using Monte Carlo methods. Copyright 1992 by Economics Department of the University of Pennsylvania and the Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Verbeek, M. & Nijman, T., 1990. "Testing For Selectivity Bias In Panel Data Models," Papers 9018, Tilburg - Center for Economic Research.
  • Handle: RePEc:fth:tilbur:9018
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. James J. Heckman, 1976. "The Common Structure of Statistical Models of Truncation, Sample Selection and Limited Dependent Variables and a Simple Estimator for Such Models," NBER Chapters, in: Annals of Economic and Social Measurement, Volume 5, number 4, pages 475-492, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. 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.
    3. Wansbeek, Tom & Kapteyn, Arie, 1989. "Estimation of the error-components model with incomplete panels," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 341-361, July.
    4. K. Newey, Whitney, 1985. "Generalized method of moments specification testing," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 229-256, September.
    5. Nijman, T.E. & Verbeek, M.J.C.M., 1989. "The nonresponse bias in the analysis of the determinants of total annual expenditures of households based on panel data," Discussion Paper 1989-36, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    6. Hausman, Jerry A & Wise, David A, 1979. "Attrition Bias in Experimental and Panel Data: The Gary Income Maintenance Experiment," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 455-473, March.
    7. Charles F. Manski, 1989. "Anatomy of the Selection Problem," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 24(3), pages 343-360.
    8. Heckman, James, 2013. "Sample selection bias as a specification error," Applied Econometrics, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), vol. 31(3), pages 129-137.
    9. Holly, Alberto, 1982. "A Remark on Hausman's Specification Test," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(3), pages 749-759, May.
    10. Mizon, Grayham E, 1977. "Inferential Procedures in Nonlinear Models: An Application in a UK Industrial Cross Section Study of Factor Substitution and Returns to Scale," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 45(5), pages 1221-1242, July.
    11. Baltagi, Badi H., 1985. "Pooling cross-sections with unequal time-series lengths," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 18(2-3), pages 133-136.
    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. Verbeek, M.J.C.M. & Nijman, T.E., 1990. "Testing for selectivity bias in panel data models," Other publications TiSEM c11a8855-79ea-45ab-bc23-8, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    2. Verbeek, M.J.C.M. & Nijman, T.E., 1992. "Incomplete panels and selection bias : A survey," Other publications TiSEM 65401dae-613b-4e10-a8ae-c, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    3. Verbeek, M.J.C.M. & Nijman, T.E., 1992. "Incomplete panels and selection bias : A survey," Discussion Paper 1992-7, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    4. Hübler, Olaf, 2005. "Panel Data Econometrics: Modelling and Estimation," Hannover Economic Papers (HEP) dp-319, Leibniz Universität Hannover, Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Fakultät.
    5. Nawata, Kazumitsu & McAleer, Michael, 2014. "The maximum number of parameters for the Hausman test when the estimators are from different sets of equations," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 123(3), pages 291-294.
    6. Nijman, T.E. & Verbeek, M.J.C.M., 1993. "Nonresponse in panel data : The impact on estimates of a life cycle consumption function," Other publications TiSEM 7e304903-485c-4f36-b13a-f, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    7. Verbeek, M.J.C.M. & Nijman, T.E., 1993. "Incomplete panels and selection bias : A survey," Other publications TiSEM 08061352-957b-4f56-b303-9, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    8. Badi Baltagi & Seuck Song, 2006. "Unbalanced panel data: A survey," Statistical Papers, Springer, vol. 47(4), pages 493-523, October.
    9. Andrea Vaona & Mario Pianta, 2008. "Firm Size and Innovation in European Manufacturing," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 283-299, March.
    10. Doko Tchatoka, Firmin Sabro, 2012. "Specification Tests with Weak and Invalid Instruments," MPRA Paper 40185, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Doko Tchatoka, Firmin & Dufour, Jean-Marie, 2020. "Exogeneity tests, incomplete models, weak identification and non-Gaussian distributions: Invariance and finite-sample distributional theory," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 218(2), pages 390-418.
    12. Guilhem Bascle, 2008. "Controlling for endogeneity with instrumental variables in strategic management research," Post-Print hal-00576795, HAL.
    13. Christelis, Dimitris & Messina, Julián, 2019. "Partial Identification of Population Average and Quantile Treatment Effects in Observational Data under Sample Selection," IDB Publications (Working Papers) 9520, Inter-American Development Bank.
    14. ter Horst, Jenke R. & Nijman, Theo E. & Verbeek, Marno, 2001. "Eliminating look-ahead bias in evaluating persistence in mutual fund performance," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 345-373, September.
    15. Kuester, Sabine & Homburg, Christian & Hildesheim, Andreas, 2017. "The catbird seat of the sales force: How sales force integration leads to new product success," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 462-479.
    16. Miguel Bacharach & William J. Vaughan, 1994. "Household Water Demand Estimation," IDB Publications (Working Papers) 25218, Inter-American Development Bank.
    17. Glenn W. Harrison & Morten I. Lau & Hong Il Yoo, 2020. "Risk Attitudes, Sample Selection, and Attrition in a Longitudinal Field Experiment," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 102(3), pages 552-568, July.
    18. Metcalf, Gilbert E., 1996. "Specification testing in panel data with instrumental variables," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 71(1-2), pages 291-307.
    19. Peracchi, Franco & Welch, Finis, 1995. "How representative are matched cross-sections? Evidence from the Current Population Survey," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 153-179, July.
    20. Li, Phillip, 2011. "Estimation of sample selection models with two selection mechanisms," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 1099-1108, February.

    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:fth:tilbur:9018. 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: (Thomas Krichel). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cekubnl.html .

    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.