Notice: On April 23, 2014, Statalist moved from an email list to a forum, based at statalist.org.
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
st: RE: Useful first stage statistics in IV with multiple endogenous regressors
From
"Schaffer, Mark E" <[email protected]>
To
<[email protected]>
Subject
st: RE: Useful first stage statistics in IV with multiple endogenous regressors
Date
Thu, 25 Nov 2010 16:48:32 -0000
Nick,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected]
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
> Nick Sanders
> Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2010 9:00 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: st: Useful first stage statistics in IV with
> multiple endogenous regressors
>
> Happy Thanksgiving fellow stataphiles,
>
> I'm running an IV with two endogenous regressors (x1 and x2)
> and two instruments (z1 and z2) using xtivreg2. I'd like to
> report some relevant statistics showing the validity of the
> instruments from the first stage regression, but I find
> myself in a bit overwhelmed by the sheer number of tests and
> results available. I'd appreciate people's thoughts on what
> they would consider to be the most convincing "strength of
> instrument" tests to report (let's assume for now that my
> instruments are justifiably excludable).
>
> In a single endogenous variable situation, my instinct would
> be to report the first-stage F stat and start with the
> "larger than 10" rule, but my reading of Angrist and Pischke
> is that the Cragg-Donald F-test isn't as informative in a
> two-endogenous variable world. This makes me consider the
> reported "F test of excluded instruments" and the
> "Angrist-Pischke multivariate F test of excluded
> instruments", provided after each of the x1 and x2 first
> stage regressions, as alternatives. But which is most
> relevant in demonstrating instrument strength? Does the
> "greater than 10" rule apply here as well? Or is there a
> better statistic to report for demonstrating instrument
> strength in a world of multiple endogenous regressors? What
> about for showing the strength of one of the two instruments
> (say, z1) in particular, beyond reporting the t-stat and the
> partial r-squared from the first stage regression?
This is tricky, and the answer depends on your application.
Are you interested in *both* your endogenous regressors? Or is one of
them really the one you're interested in, and the other is just there as
a kind of control but isn't actually of any interest?
If so, then the Angrist-Pischke first-stage F stat for the endogenous
regressor of interest is what you should focus on.
The problem with the Cragg-Donald statistic in the >1 endog regressor
case is that it will indicate whether you have a weak IV problem, but
that could be because of one endog regressor or the other, or even both.
But if you are interested in *both* endogenous regressors, this is
useful for you.
BTW, don't report the "partial R2". The A-P statistic effectively
replaces it.
Hope this helps.
--Mark
> Thanks very much,
> Nick
>
> --
> Nicholas J. Sanders, Ph.D.
> Postdoctoral Fellow
> Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research
> 366 Galvez St, Room 228
> Stanford, CA 94305
>
>
> *
> * For searches and help try:
> * http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search
> * http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
> * http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/
>
--
Heriot-Watt University is a Scottish charity
registered under charity number SC000278.
*
* For searches and help try:
* http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search
* http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
* http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/