[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date index][Thread index]
st: RE: Interpretation of Smith-Blundell exog. test
> -----Original Message-----
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org
> [mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of
> Ivar Pettersen
> Sent: 18 April 2006 02:53
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: st: Interpretation of Smith-Blundell exog. test
> I've got a Q related to the interpretation of the Smith-Blundell test.
> It is provided both by *ivprobit* and *probexog*.
> The help file for probexog states "A rejection indicates that
> the standard probit (tobit) estimator should not be employed."
> So if rejected one should use an IV-technique.
> When the test is run it is necessary to provide some
> instruments. The question is: would not a rejection also mean
> that the instruments you have provided are not good enough in
> an IV-estimation?
In fact, for the test to be valid, you have to assume that the
instruments *are* good enough for an IV estimation. The test is a test
of the exogeneity of the specified regressor. If you reject, it means
you need to treat it as endogenous and therefore instrument; if you fail
to reject, it means you can consider treating it as exogenous.
Maybe you are thinking of a test of overidentifying restrictions.
That's a test of the exogeneity of the instruments; a rejection there
means the instruments are not valid.
> Ivar Pettersen
> * For searches and help try:
> * http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/res/findit.html
> * http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
> * http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/
* For searches and help try: