Bookmark and Share

Notice: On April 23, 2014, Statalist moved from an email list to a forum, based at

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: st: treatreg vs ivreg revisited

From   Andrea Menclova <>
To   "" <>
Subject   Re: st: treatreg vs ivreg revisited
Date   Thu, 16 May 2013 01:40:00 +0000

Many thanks for your helpful response.  However, I am still confused on a couple of points and I am hoping you would be kind enough to answer them.


1. When you say I should “ never rely on the inverse Mills ratio for addressing endogeneity/selection", are you saying I should always estimate an IVmodel in addition to the treatment effects model, and not rely solely on the inverse Mills ratio approach?


2. Is a treatment effects/”treatreg” approach valid even if the instrument(s) are “weak?”  Are there any tests for the validity of instruments in the context of a treatment effects/”treatreg” model?


I appreciate your help and time,



© Copyright 1996–2017 StataCorp LLC   |   Terms of use   |   Privacy   |   Contact us   |   Site index