Dear all,
I am currently estimating an instrumented probit model and trying to obtain the correct marginal effects -on probability- afterwards (i.e ivprobit followed by margins). Nevertheless, I am confused with the changes introduced with Stata 14 to the margins command when following the ivprobit estimation. In particular, I do not completely understand why does Stata report a marginal effect for the instrument (given that it is not a covariate) and how it should be interpreted. To illustrate my problem, I am posting the commands and results obtained using Stata's manual example under Stata 13 and 14:
version
version 13.1
webuse laborsup
ivprobit fem_work fem_educ kids (other_inc = male_educ)
Fitting exogenous probit model
Iteration 0: log likelihood = -344.63508
Iteration 1: log likelihood = -255.36855
Iteration 2: log likelihood = -255.31444
Iteration 3: log likelihood = -255.31444
Fitting full model
Iteration 0: log likelihood = -2371.4753
Iteration 1: log likelihood = -2369.3178
Iteration 2: log likelihood = -2368.2198
Iteration 3: log likelihood = -2368.2062
Iteration 4: log likelihood = -2368.2062
Probit model with endogenous regressors Number of obs = 500
Wald chi2(3) = 163.88
Log likelihood = -2368.2062 Prob > chi2 = 0.0000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Coef. Std. Err. z P>|z| [95% Conf. Interval]
-------------+----------------------------------------------------------------
other_inc | -.0542756 .0060854 -8.92 0.000 -.0662027 -.0423485
fem_educ | .211111 .0268648 7.86 0.000 .1584569 .2637651
kids | -.1820929 .0478267 -3.81 0.000 -.2758316 -.0883543
_cons | .3672083 .4480724 0.82 0.412 -.5109975 1.245414
-------------+----------------------------------------------------------------
/athrho | .3907858 .1509443 2.59 0.010 .0949403 .6866313
/lnsigma | 2.813383 .0316228 88.97 0.000 2.751404 2.875363
-------------+----------------------------------------------------------------
rho | .3720374 .1300519 .0946561 .5958135
sigma | 16.66621 .5270318 15.66461 17.73186
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Instrumented: other_inc
Instruments: fem_educ kids male_educ
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wald test of exogeneity (/athrho = 0): chi2(1) = 6.70 Prob > chi2 = 0.0096
margins, dydx(*) predict(pr)
Average marginal effects Number of obs = 500
Model VCE : OIM
Expression : Probability of positive outcome, predict(pr)
dy/dx w.r.t. : other_inc fem_educ kids male_educ
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Delta-method
| dy/dx Std. Err. z P>|z| [95% Conf. Interval]
-------------+----------------------------------------------------------------
other_inc | -.014015 .0009836 -14.25 0.000 -.0159428 -.0120872
fem_educ | .0545129 .0066007 8.26 0.000 .0415758 .06745
kids | -.0470199 .0123397 -3.81 0.000 -.0712052 -.0228346
male_educ | 0 (omitted)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
************************************************** ***************************
************************************************** ***************************
************************************************** ***************************
. version
version 14.2
. ivprobit fem_work fem_educ kids (other_inc = male_educ)
Fitting exogenous probit model
Iteration 0: log likelihood = -344.63508
Iteration 1: log likelihood = -252.10819
Iteration 2: log likelihood = -252.04529
Iteration 3: log likelihood = -252.04529
Fitting full model
Iteration 0: log likelihood = -2368.2142
Iteration 1: log likelihood = -2368.2062
Iteration 2: log likelihood = -2368.2062
Probit model with endogenous regressors Number of obs = 500
Wald chi2(3) = 163.88
Log likelihood = -2368.2062 Prob > chi2 = 0.0000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Coef. Std. Err. z P>|z| [95% Conf. Interval]
------------------+----------------------------------------------------------------
other_inc | -.0542756 .0060854 -8.92 0.000 -.0662028 -.042348
fem_educ | .211111 .0268648 7.86 0.000 .1584569 .2637651
kids | -.1820929 .0478267 -3.81 0.000 -.2758315 -.0883542
_cons | .3672086 .4480724 0.82 0.412 -.5109971 1.245414
------------------+----------------------------------------------------------------
corr(e.other_inc,|
e.fem_work)| .3720375 .1300518 .0946562 .5958136
sd(e.other_inc)| 16.66621 .5270318 15.66461 17.73186
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Instrumented: other_inc
Instruments: fem_educ kids male_educ
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wald test of exogeneity (corr = 0): chi2(1) = 6.70 Prob > chi2 = 0.0096
. margins, dydx(*) predict(pr)
Average marginal effects Number of obs = 500
Model VCE : OIM
Expression : Probability of positive outcome, predict(pr)
dy/dx w.r.t. : other_inc fem_educ kids male_educ
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Delta-method
| dy/dx Std. Err. z P>|z| [95% Conf. Interval]
-------------+----------------------------------------------------------------
other_inc | -.0097802 .0014994 -6.52 0.000 -.012719 -.0068414
fem_educ | .0623273 .007099 8.78 0.000 .0484135 .076241
kids | -.0614265 .0139446 -4.41 0.000 -.0887574 -.0340956
male_educ | -.0194406 .0022103 -8.80 0.000 -.0237728 -.0151084
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
************************************************** **************************
************************************************** **************************
************************************************** **************************
As noted above, the marginal effect for each dependent variable in the second-stage regression is different under each version (as expected), but when using Stata 14.2 an additional marginal effect is presented. The one corresponding to male_educ (the instrument). Note that this variable is "dropped" when using Stata 13.1 (actually, Stata doesnt take it into account given that it is not a second stage covariate).
I am familiar with related posts (such as the one linked below) and have already read Skeels and Taylor (2015). Nevertheless, although I understand the underlying change to the estimation procedure, still can't figure out the interpretation of these new results.
Any guess on how should this "new" effect should be interpreted?
Many thanks in advance,
Francisco
References:
Skeels, C.L. and L.W. Taylor (2015) Prediction in linear index models with endogenous regressors, The Stata Journal (15), 627-644
I am currently estimating an instrumented probit model and trying to obtain the correct marginal effects -on probability- afterwards (i.e ivprobit followed by margins). Nevertheless, I am confused with the changes introduced with Stata 14 to the margins command when following the ivprobit estimation. In particular, I do not completely understand why does Stata report a marginal effect for the instrument (given that it is not a covariate) and how it should be interpreted. To illustrate my problem, I am posting the commands and results obtained using Stata's manual example under Stata 13 and 14:
version
version 13.1
webuse laborsup
ivprobit fem_work fem_educ kids (other_inc = male_educ)
Fitting exogenous probit model
Iteration 0: log likelihood = -344.63508
Iteration 1: log likelihood = -255.36855
Iteration 2: log likelihood = -255.31444
Iteration 3: log likelihood = -255.31444
Fitting full model
Iteration 0: log likelihood = -2371.4753
Iteration 1: log likelihood = -2369.3178
Iteration 2: log likelihood = -2368.2198
Iteration 3: log likelihood = -2368.2062
Iteration 4: log likelihood = -2368.2062
Probit model with endogenous regressors Number of obs = 500
Wald chi2(3) = 163.88
Log likelihood = -2368.2062 Prob > chi2 = 0.0000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Coef. Std. Err. z P>|z| [95% Conf. Interval]
-------------+----------------------------------------------------------------
other_inc | -.0542756 .0060854 -8.92 0.000 -.0662027 -.0423485
fem_educ | .211111 .0268648 7.86 0.000 .1584569 .2637651
kids | -.1820929 .0478267 -3.81 0.000 -.2758316 -.0883543
_cons | .3672083 .4480724 0.82 0.412 -.5109975 1.245414
-------------+----------------------------------------------------------------
/athrho | .3907858 .1509443 2.59 0.010 .0949403 .6866313
/lnsigma | 2.813383 .0316228 88.97 0.000 2.751404 2.875363
-------------+----------------------------------------------------------------
rho | .3720374 .1300519 .0946561 .5958135
sigma | 16.66621 .5270318 15.66461 17.73186
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Instrumented: other_inc
Instruments: fem_educ kids male_educ
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wald test of exogeneity (/athrho = 0): chi2(1) = 6.70 Prob > chi2 = 0.0096
margins, dydx(*) predict(pr)
Average marginal effects Number of obs = 500
Model VCE : OIM
Expression : Probability of positive outcome, predict(pr)
dy/dx w.r.t. : other_inc fem_educ kids male_educ
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Delta-method
| dy/dx Std. Err. z P>|z| [95% Conf. Interval]
-------------+----------------------------------------------------------------
other_inc | -.014015 .0009836 -14.25 0.000 -.0159428 -.0120872
fem_educ | .0545129 .0066007 8.26 0.000 .0415758 .06745
kids | -.0470199 .0123397 -3.81 0.000 -.0712052 -.0228346
male_educ | 0 (omitted)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
************************************************** ***************************
************************************************** ***************************
************************************************** ***************************
. version
version 14.2
. ivprobit fem_work fem_educ kids (other_inc = male_educ)
Fitting exogenous probit model
Iteration 0: log likelihood = -344.63508
Iteration 1: log likelihood = -252.10819
Iteration 2: log likelihood = -252.04529
Iteration 3: log likelihood = -252.04529
Fitting full model
Iteration 0: log likelihood = -2368.2142
Iteration 1: log likelihood = -2368.2062
Iteration 2: log likelihood = -2368.2062
Probit model with endogenous regressors Number of obs = 500
Wald chi2(3) = 163.88
Log likelihood = -2368.2062 Prob > chi2 = 0.0000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Coef. Std. Err. z P>|z| [95% Conf. Interval]
------------------+----------------------------------------------------------------
other_inc | -.0542756 .0060854 -8.92 0.000 -.0662028 -.042348
fem_educ | .211111 .0268648 7.86 0.000 .1584569 .2637651
kids | -.1820929 .0478267 -3.81 0.000 -.2758315 -.0883542
_cons | .3672086 .4480724 0.82 0.412 -.5109971 1.245414
------------------+----------------------------------------------------------------
corr(e.other_inc,|
e.fem_work)| .3720375 .1300518 .0946562 .5958136
sd(e.other_inc)| 16.66621 .5270318 15.66461 17.73186
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Instrumented: other_inc
Instruments: fem_educ kids male_educ
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wald test of exogeneity (corr = 0): chi2(1) = 6.70 Prob > chi2 = 0.0096
. margins, dydx(*) predict(pr)
Average marginal effects Number of obs = 500
Model VCE : OIM
Expression : Probability of positive outcome, predict(pr)
dy/dx w.r.t. : other_inc fem_educ kids male_educ
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Delta-method
| dy/dx Std. Err. z P>|z| [95% Conf. Interval]
-------------+----------------------------------------------------------------
other_inc | -.0097802 .0014994 -6.52 0.000 -.012719 -.0068414
fem_educ | .0623273 .007099 8.78 0.000 .0484135 .076241
kids | -.0614265 .0139446 -4.41 0.000 -.0887574 -.0340956
male_educ | -.0194406 .0022103 -8.80 0.000 -.0237728 -.0151084
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
************************************************** **************************
************************************************** **************************
************************************************** **************************
As noted above, the marginal effect for each dependent variable in the second-stage regression is different under each version (as expected), but when using Stata 14.2 an additional marginal effect is presented. The one corresponding to male_educ (the instrument). Note that this variable is "dropped" when using Stata 13.1 (actually, Stata doesnt take it into account given that it is not a second stage covariate).
I am familiar with related posts (such as the one linked below) and have already read Skeels and Taylor (2015). Nevertheless, although I understand the underlying change to the estimation procedure, still can't figure out the interpretation of these new results.
Any guess on how should this "new" effect should be interpreted?
Many thanks in advance,
Francisco
References:
Skeels, C.L. and L.W. Taylor (2015) Prediction in linear index models with endogenous regressors, The Stata Journal (15), 627-644
Comment