2002
DOI: 10.3386/t0284
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Testing for Weak Instruments in Linear IV Regression

Abstract: Weak instruments can produce biased IV estimators and hypothesis tests with large size distortions. But what, precisely, are weak instruments, and how does one detect them in practice? This paper proposes quantitative definitions of weak instruments based on the maximum IV estimator bias, or the maximum Wald test size distortion, when there are multiple endogenous regressors. We tabulate critical values that enable using the first-stage F-statistic (or, when there are multiple endogenous regressors, the Cragg-… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

35
1,156
9
6

Year Published

2009
2009
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1,653 publications
(1,206 citation statements)
references
References 28 publications
35
1,156
9
6
Order By: Relevance
“…To determine a significant correlation between alcohol consumption and availability also requires ascertaining the validity of our instrument and F-statistics of over 18 indicate that issues of weak identification are unlikely to be a problem in our application. Stock and Yogo (2002) argue that, as a rule of thumb, a value of 10 or more for the F-statistic is adequate in cases of one endogenous variable and homoskedastic errors). Formal testing of the IV specification cannot reject the null of homoskedasticity (Pagan & Hall, 1983), while we also cannot reject the null of lack of omitted variables as tested by Ramsey's specification test (RESET) for second and up to fourth order polynomial terms (Baum, et al, 2012;Hashem Pesaran & Taylor, 1999).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To determine a significant correlation between alcohol consumption and availability also requires ascertaining the validity of our instrument and F-statistics of over 18 indicate that issues of weak identification are unlikely to be a problem in our application. Stock and Yogo (2002) argue that, as a rule of thumb, a value of 10 or more for the F-statistic is adequate in cases of one endogenous variable and homoskedastic errors). Formal testing of the IV specification cannot reject the null of homoskedasticity (Pagan & Hall, 1983), while we also cannot reject the null of lack of omitted variables as tested by Ramsey's specification test (RESET) for second and up to fourth order polynomial terms (Baum, et al, 2012;Hashem Pesaran & Taylor, 1999).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Since the models include several endogenous variables, this statistic is reported instead of the F-statistic. Based on the tabulation by Stock and Yogo (2005) of critical values for the Cragg-Donald weak identi…cation statistic, the instrument is judged to be strong if the statistic is above 13.95 in the dynamic or 15.72 in the static speci…cation. 24 The statistic is well above these values in all speci…cations.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Rejecting the null hypothesis indicates that the instrument predicts co-residence. Although there is no universally accepted rule, an F statistic of 10 or higher is often used as indication of a sufficiently strong instrument (Stock & Yogo, 2005). While the second assumption can never be tested and needs to be theoretically defensible, we use the Hansen-Sargan statistic as overidentification test to examine whether the instruments (unemployment rates for each of the children's age, gender and country group) were correlated with the error term.…”
Section: Empirical Approachmentioning
confidence: 99%