IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Simulated z-tests in multinomial probit models


  • Ziegler, Andreas


Within the framework of Monte Carlo experiments, this paper systematically compares different versions of the simulated z-test (using the GHK simulator) in one- and multiperiod multinomial probit models. One important finding is that, in the flexible probit models, the tests on parameters of explanatory variables mostly provide robust results in contrast to the tests on variance-covariance parameters. Overall, neither the amount of random draws in the GHK simulator nor the choice of a certain version of the simulated z-test have a strong influence on the test results. This finding refers to the conformity between the shares of type I errors and the basic significance levels as well as to the number of type II errors. In contrast, the number of type II errors in the simulated z-tests on variance-covariance parameters is reduced by increasing the sample size. Effects of misspecifications on simulated z-tests only appear in the multiperiod multinomial probit model. In this case, the inclusion of the concept of the quasi maximum likelihood theory in the simulated z-test provides comparatively more favourable results.

Suggested Citation

  • Ziegler, Andreas, 2001. "Simulated z-tests in multinomial probit models," ZEW Discussion Papers 01-53, ZEW - Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung / Center for European Economic Research.
  • Handle: RePEc:zbw:zewdip:5409

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Axel Borsch-Supan & Vassilis Hajivassiliou & Laurence J. Kotlikoff, 1992. "Health, Children, and Elderly Living Arrangements: A Multiperiod-Multinomial Probit Model with Unobserved Heterogeneity and Autocorrelated Errors," NBER Chapters,in: Topics in the Economics of Aging, pages 79-108 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Denis Bolduc & Bernard Fortin & Stephen Gordon, 1997. "Multinomial Probit Estimation of Spatially Interdependent Choices: An Empirical Comparison of Two New Techniques," International Regional Science Review, , vol. 20(1-2), pages 77-101, April.
    3. Keane, Michael P, 1994. "A Computationally Practical Simulation Estimator for Panel Data," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 62(1), pages 95-116, January.
    4. Dansie, B. R., 1985. "Parameter estimability in the multinomial probit model," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 19(6), pages 526-528, December.
    5. 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.
    6. Asea, Patrick K. & Turnovsky, Stephen J., 1998. "Capital income taxation and risk-taking in a small open economy," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 55-90, April.
    7. Hajivassiliou, Vassilis A. & Ruud, Paul A., 1986. "Classical estimation methods for LDV models using simulation," Handbook of Econometrics,in: R. F. Engle & D. McFadden (ed.), Handbook of Econometrics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 40, pages 2383-2441 Elsevier.
    8. Borsch-Supan, Axel & Hajivassiliou, Vassilis A., 1993. "Smooth unbiased multivariate probability simulators for maximum likelihood estimation of limited dependent variable models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 58(3), pages 347-368, August.
    9. Bolduc, Denis & Lacroix, Guy & Muller, Christophe, 1996. "The choice of medical providers in rural Benin: A comparison of discrete choice models," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(4), pages 477-498, August.
    10. Lee, Lung-fei, 1999. "Statistical Inference With Simulated Likelihood Functions," Econometric Theory, Cambridge University Press, vol. 15(03), pages 337-360, June.
    11. Lee, Lung-Fei, 1995. "Asymptotic Bias in Simulated Maximum Likelihood Estimation of Discrete Choice Models," Econometric Theory, Cambridge University Press, vol. 11(03), pages 437-483, June.
    12. Vassilis A. Hajivassiliou & Daniel L. McFadden, 1998. "The Method of Simulated Scores for the Estimation of LDV Models," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 66(4), pages 863-896, July.
    13. Hajivassiliou, Vassilis & McFadden, Daniel & Ruud, Paul, 1996. "Simulation of multivariate normal rectangle probabilities and their derivatives theoretical and computational results," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 72(1-2), pages 85-134.
    14. White, Halbert, 1982. "Maximum Likelihood Estimation of Misspecified Models," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(1), pages 1-25, January.
    15. Bunch, David S., 1991. "Estimability in the Multinomial Probit Model," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt1gf1t128, University of California Transportation Center.
    16. Bolduc, Denis, 1999. "A practical technique to estimate multinomial probit models in transportation," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 63-79, February.
    17. Lee, Lung-Fei, 1997. "Simulated maximum likelihood estimation of dynamic discrete choice statistical models some Monte Carlo results," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 82(1), pages 1-35.
    18. Geweke, John F. & Keane, Michael P. & Runkle, David E., 1997. "Statistical inference in the multinomial multiperiod probit model," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 80(1), pages 125-165, September.
    19. repec:cup:etheor:v:11:y:1995:i:3:p:437-83 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Bolduc, Denis, 1992. "Generalized autoregressive errors in the multinomial probit model," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 155-170, April.
    21. Vijverberg, Wim P. M., 1997. "Monte Carlo evaluation of multivariate normal probabilities," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 76(1-2), pages 281-307.
    22. 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)

    More about this item


    Access and download statistics


    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:zbw:zewdip:5409. 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: (ZBW - German National Library of Economics). General contact details of provider: .

    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.