IV with a Mismeasured Binary Covariate

The issue here is to consider a very simple model,

Y = a + b*D + e,

where D is a binary variable and b is the coeff of interest. Suppose D is endogenous, but we have a valid instrument, z. IV is consistent and should do well in large samples if z is strong.

 But what if D is also measured with error? I.e., what if the true model is

Y = a + bD* + e,

where D* is the true D, but we only observe D (D not equal D* for some i)? That valid instrument, z, we had? Now, it's not quite as useful. Why?

 Because ME in a binary var canNOT be classical. When D*=0, the ME can only be 0 or 1. When D*=1, the ME can only be 0 or -1. Thus, the ME is necessary neg. corr. with D*. Since the IV, z, is correlated with D*, it is almost assuredly also correlated with the ME and thus invalid.

 A very good reference is Black et al. (2000). Note, this argument applies to any bounded variable; D* need not be binary. E.g., if D* represents a percentage, then it is bounded on the unit interval. If the bounds are relevant, same issue arises.

 So, is this a big deal? Most applied people would answer a question about this: "ME is not a big deal in this context. If it is exists, it's not severe enough to matter." Perhaps. Perhaps not. I performed some simulations.

 The first simulations are based on 250,000 reps with N=1000 and a strong IV. I consider random ME in 1%, 3%, 5%, and 10% of each sample. The IV estimates are biased toward OLS, and one could argue at least moderately so with 5% misclassification.


In an old paper of mine, I cite several instances where 10+% misclassifcation has been documented in commonly analyzed treatments (e.g., training, education, union status around 5%.

 Not surprisingly, if the IV is weak, then results are even worse.

So, what do we do? There are a few solutions out there, many that rely on computing bounds. But, definitely an important area for future work! One very recent contribution to this literature is by my great friend, Rusty Tchernis and co-authors.

Note: Code is available here: http://faculty.smu.edu/millimet/blog.html

 References
Black, D.A., M.C. Berger, and F.A. Scott (2000) "Bounding Parameter Estimates with Nonclassical Measurement Error," Journal of the American Statistical Association, 95, 451, 739-748

 Nguimkeu, P., A. Denteh, and R. Tchernis (2019), "On the Estimation of Treatment Effects with Endogenous Misreporting," Journal of Econometrics, 208, 2, 487-506

Popular posts from this blog

There is Exogeneity, and Then There is Strict Exogeneity

Image
Panel data has become quite abundant. As a result, fixed effects models have become prevalent in applied research. But, this week I handled a paper at one of the journals for which I am on the editorial board and was reminded of a mistake that I have seen all too frequently over the years. Most researchers are probably aware of the issue I am highlighting, but indulge me. In a cross-sectional regression model, we have y_i = a + b*x_i + e_i OLS is unbiased if x is exogenous , which requires that Cov(x_i,e_i) = 0. In other words, the covariates need to be uncorrelated with the error term from the same time period. In contrast, in a panel regression model with individual effects, we have y_it = a_i + b*x_it + e_it If we wish to allow for the possibility that Cov(a_i,x_it) differs from zero, then a_i is a "fixed" effect instead of a "random" effect. To understand what we need to assume to obtain unbiased estimates of b, we need to understand how the model i
Read more

Faulty Logic?

Image
Ahhhh, summer has arrived. As department chair, it is a welcome relief. Not that the "endless stream of crap" as I describe it has ceased. But, at least I can deal with it poolside.  Alas, something has already disturbed my summer of contentment. A few colleagues in the SMU business school came to me with some questions regarding the econometrics for a paper they are working on. They noticed something hinky in what they were finding, while following the existing literature. They came to me to try to make sense of it.  If I am right, the issue is very simple, yet reveals a lack of econometric knowledge in the existing literature. Of course, it could be I am the one lacking appropriate knowledge. You, my dedicated readers, can let me know.  Simplifying the issue a bit, the general research question is whether individuals in position of power within a firm (or other organization) matter. The prior literature focuses on managers and CEOs. Do these workers have an "effect&quo
Read more

Different, but the Same

Image
To say that difference-in-differences (DID) as a strategy to estimate causal effects has seen a resurgence in the past decade would be an understatement. A search for the term on Google Scholar produces nearly 2,000 hits. In 2020. About 22,000 since 2010. And, to say that I am not much of a fan of DID would also be a bit of an understatement. In case you are curious, I feel this way for two reasons. First, the lack of originality , as suggested by Google Scholar. Admittedly, this is an unfair critique. If it works, then it should be popular. But, I have my suspicions. I also have inner demons that make me detest the popular. I'm sure it has nothing to with my childhood and being, well, less than popular.  Second, most DID papers refer to the policy change or intervention as a  natural experiment . I equally detest that phrase in the majority of its usages. However, if one is going to pursue the DID strategy to examine the causal effect of a policy change or other intervention, then
Read more