Bookmark and Share

Notice: On March 31, it was announced that Statalist is moving from an email list to a forum. The old list will shut down at the end of May, and its replacement, statalist.org is already up and running.


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

Re: st: treatreg vs ivreg revisited


From   Andrea Menclova <andrea.menclova@canterbury.ac.nz>
To   "statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu" <statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu>
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,

 

Andrea



© Copyright 1996–2014 StataCorp LP   |   Terms of use   |   Privacy   |   Contact us   |   Site index