4.4 Article

Correcting for endogeneity due to omitted attributes in discrete-choice models: the multiple indicator solution

期刊

TRANSPORTMETRICA A-TRANSPORT SCIENCE
卷 12, 期 5, 页码 458-478

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/23249935.2016.1147504

关键词

indicators; Monte Carlo; stated preferences; control function; Instrumental variables

资金

  1. CONICYT
  2. FONDECYT [1150590]
  3. Complex Engineering Systems Institute, Chile [ICM P-05-004-F, CONICYT FBO16]
  4. Leverhulme's Visiting Professorship [VP1-2015-054]
  5. Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness [ECO2014-52587-R]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Various transportation discrete-choice models suffer from endogeneity due to the omission of attributes that are relevant for the decision maker, but cannot be measured by the researcher. The control function (CF) method can be used to address this model flaw in discrete-choice models in which the problem occurs at the level of each alternative. However, the CF requires instrumental variables, which are difficult to obtain in various practical cases. In comparison, the multiple indicator solution (MIS) method does not require instruments, but indicators, which may be easier to gather in various circumstances. The MIS method has only been described so far for linear models. In this article, we show that MIS can be extended to discrete-choice modelling under mild assumptions. We also discuss the conditions under which it could be applied in practical transportation models estimated with revealed preference (RP) and stated preferences (SP) data where the source of endogeneity can be identified explicitly. We then use Monte Carlo experiments to illustrate the finite sample properties of MIS and CF. Results seem to suggest that MIS is robust to mild violations of modelling assumptions. We finally illustrate the application of the MIS method to an SP experiment of dwelling choice, showing that the MIS seems to have addressed successfully the omission of quality inferred from a picture.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据